Transcript for:
Debate on Vatican I Papal Supremacy

[Music] oh Heavenly King Comforter Spirit of Truth Lord everywhere present and fill us all things treasury of blessings and Giver of Life come and dwell within us cleanse us of all stain and save our souls oh gracious one hey everybody welcome back to the Michael Lofton show here on reason in theology got a debate for you today Vatican one papal Supremacy is it present in the first Millennium joined by Luigi who is an orthodox Inquirer and Alex voice of reason Eastern Catholic and they're going to be debating that thesis before I get into the details and parameters and all that I just want to invite or welcome both of y'all to the show let me start with you Luigi since this is your first time welcome to the show how are you thanks man yeah I'm happy to happy to be here I know this has been highly anticipated by me and a lot of my uh my fellow Debaters on on Tik Tok and Instagram so everybody's very excited for this yeah yeah absolutely it's an honor to have you and tell us a little bit about yourself yeah so um by trade uh I'm a marine officer um however I spend pretty much all my free time uh on Tik Tok Instagram I do response videos uh on Instagram um and then debating on Tik Tok um and yeah just passionate about apologetics I've been doing apologetics for uh pretty much my whole adult life um and then most recently been began to inquire into uh Eastern Orthodoxy after about a two-year uh Journey um away from well towards High church protestantism and then and then now towards Orthodoxy so awesome well again welcome on board and Alex how are you son I'm doing excellent Michael thank you you again for having me and for hosting this debate I am super ultra Mega excited to be doing this with my man Luigi because Luigi is a great guy and um I think this is going to be great I feel like so trying really hard to be like calm and cool like my man Luigi but like inside I'm so giddy and excited I feel like like I'm a in like in my early 20s and I'm like a female and I'm going on like a Taylor Swift concert or something that's how excited I feel I'm just super excited to be doing this cuz I this is like my favorite thing to do so uh thank both of you for for uh for doing this with me and I want to give a shout out to my man Franco because francoo you know Franco TV he's the one that actually got you and I together uh Luigi to do this um uh Luigi you reached out to Franco Franco reached out to me yeah and we got we got this debate set up so I want everybody to know that this ex Protestant who is becoming Orthodox uh he challenged me so this is a man right here he's he's he's really about it he came to me he wants to do this so I'm I better be ready cuz man this that's that's awesome that's awesome and uh thank you for your service Luigi and uh know that we're all praying for you and we're really excited that you've uh that you're uh on this journey to the apostolic faith and uh know that we're all praying for you brother and and thank you for for doing this here you have nothing but friends here with me and Michael we're your brothers met so thank you for for being with us oh absolutely yeah it's honor to have y'all and so um let me read to y'all just briefly um from pastor etern is um and y'all can add anything else that y'all want to add to it as well but just to Define terms here um it's it notes this from past return it's the first Vatican Council in reference to papal Supremacy uh which again is the debate proposition you know Vatican won people Supremacy uh present in the first Millennium um it notes wherefor we teach and declare that by by Divine ordinance the Roman Church possesses a preeminence of Ord ordinary power over every other church and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both Episcopal and immediate both clergy and faithful of whatever right and dignity both singly and collectively are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience and this not only a matters concerning faith and morals but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world and so um Alex is going to be taking the thesis that papal uh Supremacy and Vatican one papal Supremacy is present in the first Millennium and Luigi is going to take the negative position that it is not present in the first Millennium um now we are going to have opening statements two opening statements um Alex is going to go first with 25 minutes followed by Luigi with same amount of time rebuttal period after that 10 minutes a piece beginning with Alex uh cross examination period 25 minutes a piece again beginning with Alex uh questioning Luigi and then after that Luigi questioning Alex that will then be followed by live Q&A so we will have um some questions from the audience from y'all your participation hold off towards the end of the cross-examination period before you start putting your questions in there because I can promise you right now you know you you put it in before then your question's just going to get lost in the chat so hold off towards the end of Luigi's round where he's questioning Alex I'll I'll perhaps prompt yall and remind yall when to do so um but that way we will get your participation we'll then have that Q&A time and then it will be followed by closing statements uh five minutes a piece with Alex and then Luigi he gets the final word Okay so gentlemen y'all excited so ready chomping at the bit let's get this done and Michael will you be will you be keeping time for us or do you need us to keep going T yes I will I have my timer right here and yeah in regards to the time like like we discussed I mean we the big thing is getting our presentations done my mine is within 25 minutes brother like take all the time you need to to do your presentation I mean no one's I think it's more edify to everybody if we get our full presentations in so thank you that that's actually what I was the most worried about was my opening statement was the first time I practiced it it was like 45 minutes I had quite a bit of it out so yeah and you know I'm I'm a little flexible so if like you're in the middle of a sentence at the end of the 25 minutes that's fine just take a few more SEC seconds to kind of wrap up that thought and then that that's you know I'm not gonna cut you off mids sentence though perfect so you'll be keeping time for us I will and what I'll do is I'll probably pop in what you'll just see yourself speaking um when you're doing your presentation but when you see me pop in that means you got one minute left so just kind of ju so when you see me pop in just kind of know to wrap it up at that point all right sounds good sounds good okay so I got my timer for 25 minutes here Alex you're gonna begin with your opening statement you got 25 minutes you let me know when you're starting and I'll I'll hit that timer okay thank you very much I will begin now in this debate I will demonstrate that the vatic one definition of papal Supremacy is indeed present in the first Millennium before the Schism between east and west and 1054 I would like to begin with two quotes in his book his broken body understanding the healing understanding healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches Orthodox priest father Lawrence kenor says this since the times of Steven the Roman Church has consistently taught that her Bishop is the successor of Peter in a unique sense and that he holds by Divine Right a privacy of power over the universal church in other words Rome made no secret that her ecclesiology and concept of privacy were different than that of the East this was expressed consistently and unambiguously by a number of popes commemorated as Saints in the Orthodox Church including such luminaries as Leo agatho and hadrien as we have seen this ecclesiology was accepted by a number of Eastern Saints yeah this is also affirmed by Catholic priest scholar and historian Father Richard Price who in his translation of the acts of the Council of Caledon says this the Bishops of Rome since ancient times also called Papa or Pope claimed the Primacy over the church that derived from Christ's commission to Peter uh today my opponent must demonstrate that this definition uh is not present in the first Millennium but my opponent has an uphill battle because the historical evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of Vatican 1 history clearly shows that the bishop of Rome the pope has always been Supreme in the Christian church this is made evident by C's examples of the Pope exercising his Universal authority to be precise there are at least one dozen unique ways in which the popes of the first Millennium exercised Universal jurisdiction these include number one binding the entire Christian Church to doctrinal pronouncements including definitively condemning heresies number two settling matters of discipline in other territories outside of the West number three convoking regional and provincial senates in the East number four reversing the decrees of Eastern Bishops and entire Regional councils number five having the sole authority of ratifying councils on the universal level and thus making them ecumenical number six refusing to ratify certain counil even those that Roman emperors convoked and that other Bishops and even Patriarchs participated in thus making them not and void number seven picking and choosing which individual cannons were authoritative and making them universally binding number eight rejecting other individual cannons making them null and void for The Universal Church uh number nine excommunicating Eastern clerics and even entire Eastern regions from Universal communion and these excommunications being accepted by the rest of The Church Without protest number 10 removing Eastern deacons presbyter and even bishops from their positions and replacing them with new ones either of his own choosing or by his personal acceptance number 11 setting doctrinal and disciplinary conditions for the readmit of schismatics back into full communion with the universal church and number 12 being the ultimate definitive authoritative and Universal court of appeals whose final decisions no other bishop or Senate of Bishops could appeal there are multiple examples of each of these in the historical record and Vatican 1's definition is explicitly attested to by Saints who are revered in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches most importantly this belief is explicitly taught by The ecumenical councils of the first Millennium which are considered to be the highest Authority for the Orthodox Church meaning that the ultimate Authority in Orthodoxy actually points to an even higher authority the bishop of Rome this undeniable reality can be seen in every single C hisory of the first Millennium in the first century during the apostolic age and while John the Apostle was still alive Orthodox Saint Pope Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the church in Corinth in which he writes on behalf of the entire Church of Rome he mentions that he's writing in response to an appeal made to Rome by the church in Corinth in order to deal with a schismatic group that arose in the territory Pope St Clement exercises his authority in this Eastern territory and orders the schismatics in Corinth to submit to and Obe the and obey the presbyter the bishop in Corinth at this time would have been either Bishop ones Onis or Bishop stinus but the letter doesn't even mention the bishop the church in Corinth healed this internal Schism not by appealing to its own bishop or any other bishops from the East around Corinth or even by appealing to the Apostle John who at this time would have been in Ephesus which is a lot closer to Corinth and Rome is instead they appealed to the bishop of Rome who responded by exercising his Universal Authority and healing the Schism Not only was his order obeyed but many of the early church actually believed that St Clement's letter to Corinth was part of sacred scripture in the second century St araneus of Leon who was a saint in the Orthodox Church wrote this in his work against heresies book 3 chapter 3 and I quote by pointing out here the successions of the Bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul with that church church because of its Superior origin all the churches must agree that is all the faithful in the whole world that it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition this second century quote from an Orthodox Saint sounds exactly like what Vatican 1 teaches also in the 2 century pope St Victor excommunicated theodus of Byzantium for the heresy of adoptionism and he did this without holding a Cate according uh to early Church's story in you I theodus was excommunicated by the bishop of Rome not by his own Bishop in Byzantium another example of papal Universal jurisdiction ubi's ecclesiastical history also tells us about a controversy between Orthodox Saint Pope Victor and the churches in Asia Minor Pope Victor threw in to excommunicate the churches in Asia Minor for celebrating Easter on a different day than the rest of the church Pope Victor was able to call a senate in Asia Minor according to polycrates Bishop of Ephesus another example of supreme papal jurisdiction and Pope Victor threatened to excommunicate all of Asia Minor and nobody said that he didn't have the authority to do this and no other Bishop threatened him with excommunication after learning that the after learning that the churches in Asia Minor used the Jewish calendar because that was the calendar used by the two apostles who brought Christianity to Asia Minor John and Phillip the pope didn't follow through with the excommunication but the mere unopposed threat of excommunication is enough to show that the pope had Universal jurisdiction even if it wasn't used in this case in the third century pope Cornelius condemned the ovist heresy by his own authority without a counsel and even sent a letter to the Novation Bishop of Antioch telling him that he had to not only accept him as the pope but also had to renounce the Novation heresy in this same Century Orthodox Saint Pope Steven definitively and authoritatively taught against re-baptized those who received baptism from schismatic groups an orthodox St vinc of Loren in the 6th Century affirmed Pope Steven's Supreme jurisdiction Pope Steven excommunicated St filon Metropolitan Bishop of cesaria and even threatened the entire Senate of Carthage with excommunication for their stance on rebaptism they changed their position to agree with the Pope in the 4th Century according to Orthodox St athus of Alexandria the Council of NAA was called to reaffirm what pope St dionysius had already definitively defined in the year 260 the pope wasn't at the council but he appointed the presiding cleric after the Council of NAA at the nation of Alexandria was deposed and excomm by uans at the first Senate of Ty in 335 Pope Julius summoned the Eastern Bishops to Rome to review this decree uh notice that the pope can summon Eastern Bishops this led to the Senate of sarda in 343 which was an Eastern Senate convoked by Pope Julius notice that the pope can uh convoked Eastern senates he commissioned Bishop josus of cordiva who previously presided over NAA 1 to preside over the council and reexamine the excommunication of aanus he was found innocent and censor was passed on the Eastern Bishops for having abandoned the council and several of them were deposed and excommunicated this was done by the authority of the Pope the Senate of sarda teaches that the pope is the final court of appeals whose judgments are definitive and cannot be uh appealed themselves also in the 4th Century Orthodox St P damasus wrote this which which was pronounced at the Senate of Rome in 382 and I quote likewise it is decreed the Holy Roman Church has been placed at the Forefront not by conciliar decisions of other churches but has received the Primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and savior who says you are Peter and Upon This Rock I will build my church and the Gates of Hell will not prevailed against it I will give to you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven the first sea therefore for is that of Peter the Apostle that of the Roman Church end quote um Robert be Eno uh Catholic priest and and um Catholic priest and Scholar says this uh from the pontificate of damasus onward documentary evidence is plentiful that the tone of papal correspondence is one of command of supreme authority and Undisputed Primacy unclouded by hesitation or shadow of self-doubt that's in his book The Rise of the papacy and uh adah Nichols another priest and Scholar says this in his work of Roman Eastern churches that Dames composed letters in a formal chany style modeled on Imperial rescripts in his public statements he adopted the plural of majesty using we rather than I and addressed his fellow Bishops as Sons instead of Brothers uh this is what Vatican 1 teaches in the fifth century pope innocent wrote this and I quote in seeking the things of God you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us the pope and have uh and have shown uh that you know that is owed to the apostolic sea uh if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the Apostle himself Peter from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name uh have emerged in March of 422 Orthodox St Pope bonifus said uh to the Eastern Bishop of thessalonica Rufus uh he said this we have directed to the Senate of Corinth such writings that all the Brethren may know that there is to be no review of our judgment in fact it has never been listed to deliberate again on what on that which has once been decided by the apostolic sea um to the entire Senate of thica he wrote this saying it is certain that the Roman Church is as it were like the head of its members of the churches spread throughout the whole world if anyone Cuts himself off from her he is exiled from the Christian religion since he no longer can share in the same fellowship and to the bishop of Macedonia he wrote this no one has ever boldly raised his hands against the apostolic Eminence from whose judgments it is not permissible to descent no one has rebelled against this who did not wish judgment to be passed upon him um at the Council of Ephesus in 431 Orthodox St serel of Alexandria had to get permission from the Pope to excommunicate the bishop of Constantinople in the story is if found guilty of heresy St sirel wrote to Orthodox St Pope Celestine and said this we shall not publicly withdraw from communion with him until we have shared this matter with your religiousness therefore be so good as to decree what you think right and whether one ought to be in communion with him or rather issue a public refusal on the grounds that no one can be in communion with one who holds and teaches such things at the same ecumenical council Philip the leate says this we offer our thanks to the holy and venerable sinate that when the writings of our holy and blessed Pope had been read to you you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations for your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole Faith the head of the Apostles is blessed Peter the apostles that's an acts of the council uh session two Philip the liate calls the Pope the head of the entire church and the councils accept this Philip the leate also said this at the council which is what quot what is quoted by Vatican 1 there is no doubt and in fact it has been known in all ages that the holy and Most Blessed Peter Prince and head of the Apostles pillar of the faith foundation of the Catholic Church received the Keys of the Kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ to him was given the power of loosing and binding of sins who down to Today and Forever both lives and judges in his successors the holy and Most Blessed Pope Celestine is his successor and holds his place and us he sent to supply his place in this holy Senate that's from session three in uh the year 449 the Roman Emperor convoked another council at Ephesus which was attended by representatives of all the churches including Rome this Council was initially accepted by all in attendants but after the papal Representatives returned to Rome and informed Pope Leo about what transpired at this Council he rejected it and made it n and void labeling it a robber Council all of the other churches obeyed Pope Leo's decree and neither Catholics or Orthodox hold to this Council Pope Leo was also an Orthodox Saint and he showed his Supremacy over a council convoked by an emperor and accepted by the east by making it completely null and void this is Vatican 1 ecclesiology two years later in 451 the Council of caldon was called so that all of the Bishops would sign off on and agree with Pope St Leo's Tob which he believed was definitive and authoritative for The Universal Church Pope St Leo also wrote this in his letter to anastasius Bishop of desal and I quote although Bishops have a common dignity they are not all the same rank even among the Most Blessed Apostles they they were alike in honor there was a certain distinction of power all were equal in being chosen but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others so today through the Bishops the care of The Universal Church could converge in the one SE of Peter and nothing should ever be at odds with its head Pope St Leo teaches that the universal church is under the one sea of peace and calls it his head this is also in Vatican 1 the 6th Century saw the healing of the aasian Schism which happened when the patriarch of Constantinople acus broke communion with the West after siding with the Roman Emperor and rejecting the Council of caldon the Schism began in 484 and was healed by Pope herdas who was also an orthodox State Pope St herdas promulgated what is now called the formula of heras which he sent to the East and required the emperor Zeno the patriarch of Constantinople and all of the other Eastern Bishops who were in Schism to sign it this formula which quotes Pope St bonifas says this the beginning of Salvation is to preserve the rule of a correct faith and to deviate and in no respect from the constitution of the fathers and because the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be allowed to fail uh Thou Art Peter and upon punish Rock I'll build my church these things which are said are proved by the effects of things because in the apostolic sea religion has always been preserved without spot or blemish all of the Bishops in the East signed this formula and the Schism was ended by the power of the Pope and Orthodox priest father Alexander schmeman uh quote uh quote says this about the formula of Paul prisas and I quote even more characteristic of the Eternal compromise with Rome was the signing of the formula of Pope pistas by the Eastern Bishops in 519 ending the 30-year Schism between Rome and Constantinople the whole essence of the papal claims cannot be more clearly expressed than in this document which was imposed upon the Eastern Bishops and quote the same Century gave us the fifth ecumenical council Constantinople 2 this Council and the famous historical events surrounding it also clearly show papal Supremacy this Council was convoked by the Roman Emperor Conant ople Justinian who kidnapped the pope from Rome and brought him all the way back to Constantinople and placed the pope under house arrest the emperor did this because he knew that he needed the Pope's ratification in order for Constantinople to be a valid ecumenical council he went through the trouble of kidnapping the pope from Rome instead of just having the patriarch of his very own City ratify the council the Patriarchs of Antioch Alexandria and Jerusalem were all closer to Constantinople than Rome was but the emperor didn't seek the ratification of any of those Bishops in fact the Patriarchs of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch were all appointed to these offices by Justinian himself because he knew that they would all go along with whatever he wanted to do even though he stacked all of the Eastern Patriarchs in his favor he still knew that the pope and only the pope could ratify the council Pope vilus didn't want to have an AUM Council so Justinian had to kidnap him in order to forcefully pursu a the pope to ratify it that's a whole lot of unnecessary trouble if all the Patriarchs are equal or if councils are above popes this fact alone proves papal Supremacy but the point is strengthened by what happens next Pope vilia still refused to ratify the council disregarding the emperor even while under house arrest nevertheless the emperor convoked the council anyway believing that he could persuade the pope to ratify it eventually the pope however believed that he could operate apart from a council and achieved this goal all by himself which is exactly what he did and at the first uh and at first he even wrote against the council while it was taking place this actually led to the council excommunicating Pope vigilus even though the council singles out Pope vigilus is Authority in the very session that excommunicated him it says and I quote although therefore vilus has already frequently condemned the three chapters in writing and has done this also by word of mouth and in the presence of the emperor and of the most uh glorious judges and of many members of the Senate and has always been ready to Smite with anathema The Defenders of Theo of msua ibas andet yet he has refused to do this in communion with you and your Senate Constantinople 2 even says in the emperor's opening letter that the Pope's teaching is definitive saying that the the pope wrote back to Rome saying that nothing might be undertaken against the judicat document that Pope Julius wrote the same session even calls the Pope the head of the Bishops addressing him by saying and I quote if your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the most holy Patriarchs and the most religious Bishops and to treat of the three chapters and to give in unison with us all a suitable form of the Orthodox faith we will hold you as our head as a father and primate end quote even after removing Pope vilus the same session still goes out of its way to mention that it is still United to the apostolic sea saying and I quote let us preserve Unity to the apostolic sea of the most holy church of ancient Rome carrying out all things according to the tenor of what has been said so the pope finally ended up ratifying Constantinople 2 anyway after being under house arrest in Constantinople for nine years even after the pope accepted the council he did so by his own Authority not in submission to it he condemned the three chapters again without mentioning the council and his approval of the council was expressed in two documents a letter to udus of Constantinople on December 8th uh 553 and a second constitut them on February 23rd of 554 when the council was ratified by the pope his excommunication was removed and it is not part of the official acts of the council this famous historical episode leaves no question about it even a Roman Emperor who had all of the Eastern Patriarchs in his back pocket knew that not only is the pope above a council but the pope is necessary for a council to even be binding on The Universal Church the sixth Century also gives us another example of the Pope being Supreme Over Regional senates even those in the East because towards the end of the century pope Bagus II unold an entire Eastern Senate this is according to Pope alius thei successor Pope St Gregory the Great who wrote uh this he said8 years ago in the time of my predecessor of holy memory Pelagius our brother and fellow Bishop John in the city of Constantinople seeking occasion from another cause held a senate in which he attempted to call himself Universal Bishop which as soon as my said predecessor knew he dispatched Letters anuling by the authority of the Holy Apostle Peter the acts of the said sinate of which letters I have taken care to send copies to your Holiness uh so Pope St Gregory the Great threatened to do the same thing and anol the Eastern Senate of Constantinople for the same reason that the patriarch was again trying to adopt the title of universal Bishop Orthodox scholar Edward sensky says in page 192 of his book the papacy and the Orthodox sources in history of the debate uh and I quote Gregory thus provides a modern ecumenical discussion on the papacy with the two-edged sword for on one hand there is no doubt that he defended the prime of Rome vigorously and grounded his preeminence on his se's petrin origin rather than on any consar decision uh the Protestant historian Philip scha also says that Pope Gregory had authority over the Eastern churches in his work history of the Christian church on page 224 the seventh century is also jam-packed with instances of papal Supremacy Orthodox Saints like Pope Theodore and Pope Martin exercise Universal jurisdiction I will be reading from Michael lofton's book answering Orthodoxy starting on page 138 where he says this the evidence shows that the pope was more than a first among equals in the case of Pope St Martin I first venerated as a sa an Orthodoxy who in the sth century intervened in the Affairs of the territories of Antioch and Jerusalem during the monolite crisis the Anglican convert to Catholicism Thomas William allies describes the situation by saying this about the year 650 Pope St Martin exercises his power of universal jurisdiction by constituting John Bishop of Philadelphia his vicory in the East that you may correct the things which are wanting and appoint Bishops presbyter and deacons in every city of those which are subject to the to the Sea both of Jerusalem and of Antioch we charge you to do this in every way in virtue of the apostolic Authority which was given to us by the Lord in the person of the most holy Peter Prince of the Apostles on account of the necessities of our time and the pressure of the Nations the kind of intervention in the Affairs in an Eastern jurisdiction is also seen in moren's predecessor Pope St Theodor the first who was also venerated as a saint in Orthodoxy who commissioned the Eastern Bishop Steven of door to theose heretical Bishops in the patriarchy of Jerusalem um and Steven ofor at the same Council says uh that the Pope that only the pope can stop the monolite heresy because the Roman Sea Rules and presides over all others and says that has always have the authority to to do such a thing because of the Divine promise of Christ to St Peter according to Father Richard Price in his acts of the latter in Council and Orthodox St Maximus a Confessor also says this affirming papal Supremacy but I see everybody on the screen so I think that my time is up is that good you got 20 seconds okay so I'll just read what St Maximus says here um he says let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman sea for if it is satisfied he will agree in calling him pous and Orthodox he's only uh wasting words who thinks he must convince of lure such people as myself in satisfying the pope and I had a whole bunch more to go but like you can finish the qu you can finish the quote man I mean like okay well if if you agree to it Luigi yeah I mean and how much more time do you got bro because if I mean if you got like just a couple minutes you you're good to finish if it's okay with Michael I only got like that's fine as long as Luigi's okay with that as long as it's not like 10 minutes you you go ahead no you're good up to you then got coulees left you're it's like two or three minutes is that cool go for it okay cool so let me finish let me see really quick um all right in the the six ecumenical council Constantinople 3 took place and it is explicit at making the claims that are echoed by Vatican 1 namely papal and fabil according to Orthodox St Pope agatho who was at the council Constantinople 3's resolution had already been previously defined by Pope AR I 1 this is in Pope St ago's letter to the emperor which was read out loud in the council um this is another example of the Pope being Supreme and definitively and authoritatively settling doctrinal matters apart from a council the council famously condemned also famously condemned a previous Pope aorus as having been a private heretic at first glance this might seem like an instance of a council being above a pope but it actually isn't the council is only authoritative because Pope agatho ratified it if the council had condemned Pope an orius but Pope agatho had not ratified it the condemnation would have been noan void this is actually an example of another Catholic teaching related of papal Supremacy which is that a pope can only be judged by a future Pope this is exactly what we see in the case of Pope an orius who was judged by a future Pope in St agatho and he just so happened to do this in the context of an ecumenical council um in the uh Next Century Orthodox St Pope sergius demonstrated papal Supremacy by rejecting the Eastern C of ulo in 692 the rejection continued into the 8th Century as Pope John iith had also rejected it after having being sent the Cannons of trulo for approval which he never gave and uh he was believed to have been Supreme Over Cannons of Eastern councils even by the emperor according to Liber pontificalis that says that the emperor sent him the the acts of the councils and he didn't say anything about him and um and one last thing uh they were finally ratified by Pope Constantine uh who finally accepted the Cannons of trulo with some exceptions and only binding them on the eastern part of the church which is called the compromise of Nica so the emperor had to ask three different popes uh before one would finally accept them and when they were finally accepted it was only for the East they weren't Universal um so once again this shows that papal Supremacy over uh Eastern Senate over Eastern senates is also uh something that we see in the first Millennium and that the Pope's disciplinary decrees can only be changed by a future Pope this is the teaching of Vatican 1 and I'll just leave it there thank you for that all right thank you and Luigi you can also go over your your time extra if you need to as well to make it fair for you so that that's perfect wor yeah okay well I'll set it for 25 but hey if like I said if you need more than that that's fine okay I'll pop in about one minute before just to kind of give you a warning okay one moment here I'm just I just want to say brother phenomenal presentation phenomenal thank you sir all right whenever you're ready you give me the go and then I'll start is the Vatican 1 papacy the true supreme authority of the church there is a reason the Roman Catholics place so much emphasis on this question because if they can prove the Vatican 1 version of the papacy then they have proven that they are the one true church I want to begin by establishing the burden of proof that my brother Alex must carry today many Roman Catholics will point to examples in the first Millennium of the obvious Primacy of Rome as if this is evidence for their position however the Primacy of Rome is virtually uncontested among Eastern Orthodox and even Protestant Scholars Alex's burden of proof today is much heavier than simply the Primacy of Rome rather he has to prove that the pope was treated as an autocrat with infallible capabilities as Pastor eterno States quote therefore Faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian religion we teach and Define that it is a divinely revealed Dogma that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra enjoys through the Divine assistance that infallibility promised to him in the Blessed Peter and therefore that the definitions of the same Roman pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the church end quote two things I must highlight from this passage first and foremost the claim is that this has been the teaching since quote the beginning of the Christian religion end quot secondly that his authority is quote not from the consent of the church end quot this is further captured in the vatican's official interpretation of Pastor eternos by Bishop Gasser quote if these words of Christ are to have their necessary Force then it seems to me that one should conclude that the brothers that is the Bishops in order that they be firm in the faith need the aid and advice of Peter and his successors not vice versa end quote and again quote it can be in no way deduced that there is a strict and absolute necessity of seeking that consent from the church or from the Bishops end quote I want to directly contrast this with the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 which states quote the Bishops of every nation must acknowledge Him who is first among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consent but neither let him who is first do anything without the consent of all for so there will be unanimity end quote instead of finding the definition of Vatican 1 in which the pope can speak without the consent of the episcopate we find the opposite Rome in the first Millennium was the first SE no one disputes this Alex will likely bring to your attention example after example where Rome is appealed to in the first Millennium and you will find no contest from me regarding this however remember his burden to proof is not to demonstrate that Rome was the head of the church but rather to demonstrate what Vatican 1 dogmatically claims that the bishop of Rome has the authority to decree without the consent of the church and this has been the teaching from the from the beginning I've already read the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 which states the literal inverse of thise but neither let him who is first first do anything without the consent of all yet again this is stated in Canan 9 of the Council of Antioch in 341 but let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the Metropolis neither the latter without the consent of the others to further demonstrate this point is the Council of sardica in 343 accepted by both the East and the West the council States in canons 3 4 5 and N that when appeals are made to Rome the case will simply be reviewed by Rome but the final appeal is heard by neighboring Bishops in a synod without the pope even present instead he was authorized only to send legates this means that in every example of appeals to Rome that Alex will inevitably bring up the matter was settled in a council with the consent of the church which leads me now to the historical examples sure surely we will find that papal Supremacy regardless of the consent of the church has been evident since the beginning of Christianity as Vatican 1 asserts or will will we instead see as prescribed in the ancient cannons a consar model of which Rome is the head and he acts as the ratif of The Bishop's decisions I first want to point out that not one of the seven ecumenical councils was called by the pope despite the fact that Vatican 2 States quote it is the prerogative of the Roman pontiff to convene councils preside over them and confirm them end quote latter in 649 was the only attempt by a pope to call an ecumenical council and this is not held to be an ecumenical council by the Orthodox Church nor by magisterial Source within the Catholic Church ask yourself why was yet another ecumenical council required after a pope had already produced his decree via a Papal and cyclical and had even held a previous Council of which he had attempted to declare acumenical if the teachings of Vatican 1 were truly known from the beginning of Christianity this would have been all that was required instead the heresy of monothelitism did not mean its formal anatha until declared such in the Council of Constantinople 3 of 681 this council is often used by Roman Catholics to support the papacy in fact most of their arguments ironically involve a council the argument from Roman Catholics is typically that the letter of Pope agatho is read as an infallible autocrats orders in this Council to the extent that he has several extra thedal statements in the letter this would be a good argument if the council didn't repeatedly refer to the letter in session 8 as quote suggestions or in the Latin suggestio and in the Greek anaphora end quote now one might say this was just their manner of speaking to which I respond with several quotes from the council themselves in their letter back to Pope agatho the council States their own definition is infallible quote and we all agree both in heart and tongue and have put forth by the assistance of the life-giving spirit a definition clean from error certain and infallible not removing the ancient Larks but remaining steadfast in the testimonies and authority of the Holy and improved fathers end quote the only infallible declaration recognized by the Bishops was that of the council collectively consenting to the closest thing to one's individual infallibility during this council is not the pope but rather the emperor when Pope agatho declares quote for these decrees the Holy Spirit by his grace dictated to the tongue of the Imperial pen end quote my next argument regarding this council is in reference to the condemnation of Pope henus an atiz as a heretic now we can argue as Scholars have for centuries whether or not he was guilty of monothelitism or if this was simply a private error but my argument transcends this question if the pope is above a council and no one can judge a pope except another Pope as airm throughout denzinger Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 why did the third Council of Constantinople feel perfectly comfortable with condemning a pope as a heretic I thought these teachings have been known for all ages and have been understood since the beginning of the Christian faith did the Bishops of Constantinople 3 miss the memo or could it be that a conciliar model held in modern Eastern Orthodoxy was always the model to taught by the church the famous passage of Matthew 16 is used time and time again to try to prove the papacy and we will address this in further detail later on however I want to point out how this passage is used in Constantinople 3 in the final acclamation of the council they State this quote and with the almighty who rules with you oh most devout Emperor you decide because you are appointed by God Rejoice O City of Zion Summit of the world and the Empire Constantine ornamented you with purple and crowned you with faith and the Gates of Hell shall not Prevail against your Orthodox Empire end quote so the concluding proclamation of the council not only states that the emperor is appointed by God and as the final decision but also that the Gates of Hell shall not Prevail against Constantine's Orthodox Empire the very fact that Matthew 16 is used by an ecumenical council to affirm to someone other than the pope provides serious consideration in other instances where Matthew 16 is used in councils if Matthew 16 is simply about Peter and his successors in Rome then we would never expect it to be used for any other context however if we interpret quote the Gates of Hell will not Prevail against it end quot to mean the Orthodoxy of Peter will not be overcome by the gates of hell then this quote from the sixth ecumenical council makes perfect sense as to why it's not applied to the pope notice the language in the quote the Gates of Hell shall not Prevail against your Orthodox Empire it is not Peter and his successors in Rome who alone have the protection against the gates of hell but rather it is the Orthodox Theology of Peter and the other Apostles that is preserved in the church this means that whenever language is used to suggest that Peter is speaking through the Pope the most consistent interpretation of this is that the pope is simply upholding the Theology of Peter if a pope fails to do this Peter is no longer speaking through him which we will now see clearly in the fifth ecumenical council held in Constantinople in the year 553 this Council contains the most unequivocal attempt by a pope to make what is now known as an ex Cathedral statement the focal point to the council was a controversy of the three chapters now there's a lot of historical background of these chapters that is irrelevant to this debate but for now all you need to know is that they contain historian Tendencies the council was called by Emperor Justinian and despite Pope vilus attempts to host the council in the west it was held in Constantinople two years after Pope vigilus issued what was called his judic cadium which moderately condemn the three chapters he withdrew it this was the Watershed event that triggered the convening of the council Pope vigilus refused to attend the council due to lack of representation from the West despite the fact that there was equal representation from each patriarch's jurisdiction during the council Pope vigilus wrote his final decree to the Bishops in attendance titled the constitu this document refused to condemn the authors of the three chapters as Heretics in this document his final assertion was as follows quote we ordain and decree that it be permitted to no one to write or bring forward anything contradictory to the contents of this constituent or after this declaration begin a new controversy about them and if anything has already been done in contradiction to this our ordinance thus we declare void by the authority of the apostolic C end quote a couple things I want to highlight from this quote Pope vilus concludes his letter by asserting his ultimate Authority as the apostolic sea he says that following this letter there is to be no new controversy regarding the three chapters it is the final declaration to which no one should question by the authority of the apostolic sea the constitu meets all the requirements of an ex- Cathedral statement is an unequivocal and unambiguous attempt to assert his supreme authority over the council surely since this supreme authority has been recognized since the beginning days of Christianity as Vatican 1 asserts the council would receive this letter as the final Authority and the council would be concluded right unfortunately for papal apologists this was not the reaction of the council in their response back to Pope vigilus they State the quot the following quote and to this end we brought to his remembrance the great examples left us by the apostles and the traditions of the fathers for Al although the grace of the holy spirit abounded in each one of the Apostles so that no one of them needed the counsel of another in the execution of his work yet they were not willing to define the question then raised until being gathered together they had confirmed their own several sayings by the testimony of the Divine scriptures but also the holy fathers who from time to time have met in four holy councils disposed of by a fixed decree the heresies and questions which had strung up that by Common discussion when the matter in dispute was presented by each side the light of Truth expels The Darkness of falsehood nor is there any other way in which truth can be made manifest when there are discussions concerning the faith since each one needs the help of his neighbor as we read in Proverbs of Solon a brother helping his brother shall not be exalted like a wal City shall be exalted like a w City and he shall be strong as a well-founded kingdom and again in Ecclesiastes he says two are better than one because they have a good reward for their labor so also the Lord himself says verily I say unto you that if two of you shall agree upon the Earth as touching anything they shall seek for they shall have it from the father who is in heaven for wheresoever two or three are gathered in my name there I am in their midst end quote they then go on to condemn the authors of the three chapters as Heretics despite Pope vigilus constitut attempting to maintain them as Saints so to be blatantly clear the pope attempts to Institute his authority over the council as the sea of Rome and the council's response is to reject this Authority by referencing Matthew 18 and multiple other passages that support a conciliar model not so coincidentally Matthew 18 is the same passage where the keys of Matthew 16 of binding and loosing are given to all 12 Apostles one final point in this final Declaration of the council notice they do not single out any one Apostle when stating that the quote Grace of the holy spirit abounded in each one of the Apostles so that no one of them needed the counsel of another in the execution of his work end quote this is the Vatican 1 view of infallibility and yet here it is being applied to every single Apostle and Peter is not mentioned not only this but the Declaration points out that this that despite the holy spirit being present as a guide in each Apostle they did not make a formal decision on the circumcision of the Gentiles until meeting in a synod so even if one were to Grant the infallibility of the Pope this would refute the idea that he does not need the consent of the church even the apostles needed the consent to the church surely so does the pope less than a year later pope vigilus then retracts this constitut replaces it with yet another constitut in this final document he concurs with the council's decisions to condemn the authors of the three chapters as Heretics which begs the question which constitut is infallible if both meet the requirements of an ex- Cathedral statement later on when this council is then summarized in the session one of the seventh ecumenical council it states quote when the Holy and ecumenical fifth Council had assembled at Constantinople a common and Universal anatha was imposed on origin and Theodore and the teaching of aus and dedemus on pre-existence and a universal Restoration in the presence and with the approval of the four Patriarchs end quote according to the seventh acumenical Council over 200 years later this Council was seen as fully valid with the affirmation of the four Patriarchs of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem one of the best summaries of the ecclesiology of the first Millennium is a quotation by St Theodore the studite that reads we are quote we are not discussing worldly Affairs the right to judge them rests with the emperor and the secular tribunal but here it is a question of divine and Heavenly decisions those are reserved only to him to whom the word of God has said whatsoever you shall bind on Earth will be bound in heaven and whatsoever you shall loose on Earth shall be loose in heaven and who are the men to whom this order was given the apostles and their successors and who are their successors he who occupies the Throne of Rome and is the first the one who sits upon the throne of Constantinople and is the second after them those of Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem that is the pentar authority in the church it is to them that all decisions belong in Divine dogmas the emperor and his secular Authority have the duty to Aid them and confirm them what they have decided and quote there are many more examples through history I could address but for now I'll be moving on to the holy scriptures before my concluding remarks I believe the strongest argument is to be found in Matthew 16 itself on this passage hinges the entirety of the papacy now Alex and I could play Church Father quote pingpong regarding the interpretation of this passage until the cows come home or I could reference a Roman Catholic scholar who compiled every single citation regarding the rock of Matthew 16 let me read from his findings quote the French Roman Catholic lenoi surveyed the patristic evidence found 17 citations supporting the concept that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16 please note this does not mean that all 17 of these fathers also felt this meant that the bishop of Rome as his sole successor but only that they felt they saw Matthew 16 in the phrase this rock as referring to Peter however lenoi found 16 citations that identifi the rock as Christ he found eight that identified all the apostles together as forming the rock of Matthew 16 and he found 44 indicating that the rock of Matthew 16 was the the confession of Faith made by Peter in Christ Jesus end quote now my argument here is not that Peter isn't the rock I believe he is however the consensus of the fathers is that Peter's profession of faith is far more important thing being established here he was the first to speak and in this context was the first of the disciples to acknowledge the Divinity of Christ because of his faith he is rewarded with the Keys of the Kingdom the authority to bind into loose however Matthew doesn't end with this passage in fact less than two chapters later Jesus gives the guidance on how to resolve conflict in the church starting in quote verse 15 if your brother sins Go and show him his fault in private if he listens to you you have won your brother but if he does not listen to you take one or two more with you so by the mouth of two or three Witnesses every fact may be confirmed if he refuses to listen to them tell it to the church and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be to you as a gentile and a tax collector truly I say to you whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on Earth shall have been loosed in heaven again I say to you that if two of you agree on Earth about anything that may be that may ask it shall be done for them by my father who is in heaven for where two or three are gathered together in my name I am there in their midst end quote the verb the verbiage Jesus uses here regarding the authority to bind and to lose is identical to what he just told Peter in chapter 16 this Authority in Matthew 18 however is given to all 12 Apostles and more importantly given to the church remember this was the same passage referenced by the fifth ecumenical council when they were justifying the authority of the council above that of even the Roman pontiff this is why Pope Leo along with dozens of other Church fathers who Express a similar view States quote whatsoever you shall bind on Earth it shall have been bound in heaven and whatsoever you shall loose on Earth shall be loose in heaven this power is confided to him in a special manner because the type or forma of Peter is proposed to all the pastors of the church therefore the privilege of Peter dwells wherever judgment is given with his Equity end quote in other words what Pope Leo is saying here is not that Peter is a super Bishop who passes his infallible Authority exclusively to the Sea of Rome but rather that Peter is the prototype for what every Bishop represents both St Clement and St Ignatius reinforce this point when they state that every Bishop is the high priest St Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John and was appointed in his sea of Antioch by St Peter St Clement was both a disciple of and appointed by St Peter surely if anyone understood the ecclesiology of St Peter was leaving to his successors it was the two of these first generation fathers St Ignatius States quote see that you all follow the bishop even as Jesus Christ does the father and this presor as you would the apostles and the reverence of the deacons as being the institution of God let no man do anything connected with the church without the bishop let that be deemed a proper Eucharist which is administered either by the bishop or by one to whom he has entrusted it wherever the bishop shall appear there is the Catholic church this is in letter eight uh chapter eight of his letter to the samarians of St Ignatius St Ignatius is clear here that the bishop is there the Catholic church and most importantly the Eucharist the Catholic catechism States quote Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice end quot at the second Vatican Council it states quot these Eastern churches although separated from us possess true sacraments above all Apostolic succession the priesthood and the Eucharist end quote if the Eastern Church have the Eucharist this means they have Christ which begs the question that St Ignatius answers here if you have the Eucharist and you have the B Bishop what are you missing St Ignatius believes you are missing nothing because St Peter is the prototype for the bishop and he passes his authority to the bishop the dicese then becomes the temple St Clement drives this PO this point home even further when he States quote let us Preserve in the church the order appointed by God those therefore Who present their offerings at the appointed times are accepted and blessed for in as much as they follow the laws of the Lord they sin not for his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests end quote chapter 40 of his epistle to the Corinthians again we see the same structure to which St Clement is stating as appointed by God that the bishop acts as the high priest and the preser as the priest once we begin to understand how these early fathers understood Apostolic ecclesiology of St Peter as the Prototype for the episcopacy the other pieces fall into place such an example is the lines of succession that were non- Apostolic such as Jerusalem these lines of succession almost always begin with Peter as the first to ordain them these Bishops then do not succeed him as an infallible autocrat but rather as the high priest that he fulfills in Matthew 16 this is why St cyprian States quote our Lord whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe describing the honor of a bishop and the Order of his church speaks in the gospel and says to Peter I say unto thee that thou art Peter and Upon This Rock I will build my church and the Gates of Hell shall not Prevail against it and I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever Thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever Thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loose in heaven then through the changes of times and successions the ordering of Bishops and the plan of the church flow onwards so the church is founded upon the Bishops and Every Act of the church is controlled by these same rulers since this then is founded on the Divine Law I Marvel that some will daring tarity have chosen to write me as if they wrote in the name of the church when the church is established in the bishop in the clergy and all who stand steadfast in the faith end quote to conclude I again assert that it is the burden of proof of Alex to demonstrate the Vatican West Vatican 1 definition of papal Supremacy was understood and abided by in the ancient church this is clear clearly defined in Vatican 1 when it states quote this has been understood since the beginning of the Christian religion end quote yet also again I state that Vatican 1's definition of papal Supremacy is Authority above councils he does not even require the consent of the church in his decrees this is evident in Vatican 1 when it states the Roman pontiff's decrees are quote irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the church end quote this subjectively contradicts the model of the early church their model was conciliar codal and no one super Bishop could ever supersede this Authority despite their many attempts to do so I will end my statement the same way the great fathers of the faith did in the fifth ecumenical council with a verse from Matthew 18 quote for where two or three have gathered together in my name I am there in their mited end quote all right thank you for that so you had one minute left do you you want to add anything that's it okay no problem all right let me start the CL reset the clock here we're going to go into our rebuttal period and now we have 10 minutes a piece beginning with Alex Alex you let me know whenever to begin the timer and then you can have it uh you're on mute now I'm good to go now I'm ready okay all right let me know when to hit it all right go for it uh Luigi that was an excellent opening statement my friend you did a fantastic job oh you see my producer medling with me um so you mentioned a lot of things let me go through all of them really quick and respond to as many of them as I can uh I'm just going to kind of go backwards here you said that the early church uh was consilia well I demonstrated how in the earliest in the first two centuries of the church you have um examples with example Pope St Clement who you yourself uh quoted where Pope St Clement uh went uh went into the T territory of Corinth by sending them a letter and that he was able to settle a Schism that was going on in that church and he did it without the need of a counsel same thing happened with Pope St Victor who he actually was able to call a Cate in the East authoritatively threaten to excommunicate an entire region of the church in Asia Minor and nobody um said that he couldn't do it and nobody threatened him with excommunication um so we have two early early examples from people that knew the apostles uh popes that knew the apostles in the case of St Clement that um he was able to do that in a territory that was not his now you mentioned uh St cyprian as well and uh you quoted uh something that St cyprien said and it's important to note that St cyprian's ecclesiology toward the end of his life uh doesn't match the Catholic or the Orthodox ecclesiology because St cyprien believed that pretty much every individual Bishop was in a sense uh Sovereign which actually isn't what the Orthodox Church teaches because uh in St cyprian's writings you have no sense whatsoever of a metropolitan bishop or even a patriarchal Bishop St cyprian toward the end of his life believed that all B Bishops were technically um um what's the word that I'm looking for that they were all Sovereign and that what they said goes and that no other Bishops could ever interfere which isn't what we see in history but I wanted to quote this from St cyan uh he says this about the pope um quoting uh the famous Pates the Lord says to Peter I say to you you are Peter on this rock I'll build my church on him Peter builds the church and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep and although he he assigns alike power to all of the Apostles yet he founded a a single chair cathedra and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that Unity indeed the others that also which Peter was the apostles uh but the Primacy is given to Peter whereby it is made clear that there is but one church and one chair so to all of the Apostles are Shepherds and the flock is shown to be one fed by all of the Apostles and single-minded Accord if someone does not hold fast to the unity of Peter can he imagine that he still holds the faith if he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the church is built can he still be confident that he is in the church so there St cyprian says that there was only one chair for the entire Universal Church which is again a position that he would later went on to uh he changed his position but that position that he changed to uh isn't held by the Orthodox ecclesiology either um you also mentioned that um Cath so you mentioned something interesting that um the sacraments right that uh the Catholic Church accepts the sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox which is true the Catholic Church accepts the sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox which is uh in line with what we read uh with the early church fathers like you mentioned uh St uh Ignatius of Antioch but here's the thing many of the Eastern Orthodox don't accept the sacraments of uh the Catholic church or the Oriental Orthodox Church or the Assyrian Church of the East so if you were to compare both communions the Catholic church and the Orthodox Church the Catholic church is actually more in line with what was taught by St Ignatius than what the Orthodox Church uh would be the Orthodox Church would have to come up with some reason as to why all of a sudden the popes in 1054 from one day to the next no longer had valid sacraments um so that's the burden of proof is actually on the Orthodox not on Catholics Catholics are perfectly consistent on that point um you also mentioned that um St n also says that every Bishop is the high priest that's true every single Bishop is the high priest of his uh territory of his dases um and Luigi you know that the church is structured in a particular way at the most local level you have a group of priests and one of those priests is the high priest who we call the Bishop at the most local level but then we also know that we have uh um other territories other dases that are Al together in a province and of in one Province all of the Bishops that share one Province one of those Bishops will be called The Metropolitan bishop or the Archbishop and he is the head of that Province and then when you have a whole bunch of provinces uh that are together in a in a territory one of those Metropolitan Bishops or archbishops is called the patriarch right well if you just take it a step further if you have multiple Patriarchs uh in the world if one priest is ahead of others in a dicese and that's the bishop if one Bishop is ahead of the others in a uh in a senate of Bishops and that's the uh Metropolitan or the Archbishop and one Metropolitan is the head of the other metropolitans in an entire territory that's the patriarch that would mean that one patriarch would be ahead of the other Patriarchs in universally speaking and that is the patriarch of Rome the bishop of Rome uh the pope so we agree completely with St Ignatius ecclesiology um you also said that uh Peter's confession of Faith um is The Rock and you agree that Peter is the rock but said that uh 44 fathers in the early church claimed that it was St Peter's uh faith that was the rock I'd like to point you to the catechism of the Catholic church this is paragraph 424 uh a lot of people don't know this but that idea that St Peter's confession is the rock that is part of Catholic teaching the Catholic church affirms that this is what 424 says in the catechism moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the father we believe in Jesus and confess you are the Christ the son of the Living God on the rock of this Faith confess by Peter by St Peter Christ built his church so that's actually a definitive authoritative interpretation of Matthew 16 as well it's Peter who is The Rock because of his faith what this means saying that it's Peter's faith that is the rock is that Peter's Faith what he believes what he professes that's what's infallible and that's a key distinction it's a more precise way of uh talking about the Pope's infallibility because we don't believe that the pope is infallible in everything he says we don't even believe that the popee is impeccable in his behavior we believe that the pope is only infallible in matters of faith and that's what it means uh when it says that Peter's uh faith is the rock it's a much more specific um much more specific way of of of explaining why Peter himself is the rock it's specifically his faith so that doesn't contradict Catholic ecclesiology either um you also mentioned uh the pentar authority the pentarchy being the five Patriarchs um that they had to do everything together I know that you quoted uh uh you gave some quotes that says that the pentarchy always has to be uh United always has to have um U that nothing can be done without the pentarchy as a whole however if that is the case and that is the truth from the very beginning all the way from the time that the church was established we would have to uh reject the Council of Ephesus because uh the patriarch of Antioch the entire church of Antioch rejected Ephesus we would have to reject the next Council the Council of caladon because the patriarch of Alexandria the entire church of Alexandria rejected that Council as well so we don't have uh perfect pentar uh agreement even on ecumenical councils and those councils we still hold to be authoritative even though we had entire Patriarchs that rejected them and the reason they were authoritative is once again because they were ratified by the bishop of Rome now he talks about the burden of proof that I have I think that I've defended I've uh defended the thesis well in my opening statement um the burden of proof that Luigi would have is he would have to for example one way that he could win this debate is if he were to just name one ecumenical council that wasn't ratified by the pope or one ecumenical council that was able to uh reject something that the pope had already uh definitively taught um the one uh thing that makes all of the seven ecumenical councils the one thing that makes them unique that makes them ecumenical apart from all of the other Regional s senates and robbert councils isn't that they were convoked by the emperor because we have other senates we have at least two that I can think of out the top of my head that were convoked by the Emperor who the emperor the emperor wanted them to be ecumenical councils and they're not ecumenical councils uh in the Catholic or the Orthodox Churches simply because the bishop of Rome the pope did not ratify them as such um and man you brought up so many great points um the Council of sarda if you read canons seven and8 of sarda seven and8 of s could say that whatever the bishop of Rome um says or whatever uh his definitive uh what's the word that I'm looking for uh whatever he um whatever his whatever the bishop of Rome uh decrees cannot be contested by any bishop or any Senate of Bishops at all so that's what the Council of C sardus says Canon seven and8 um and again I think that's my time that went by super quick you said so many great points my friend but I couldn't get to the allall but I that was as much as I could do we'll get plenty of time on the cross exam I'm I'm not going to hit everything either so awesome brother all right all right let me go ahead and start the timer over whenever you're ready Luigi let me know all right so he also made a lot of really good points I'm gonna try to hit as many of these I can so he brought up he opened with a quote by Father Richard Price from uh in regards to the toome of Leo at caladon so I want to read another quote by father price at Caledon he says quote nothing could be more indicative of the mood of this this Council and the fact that even Theodor had to defend the Tome of Leo by appealing to the authority of cill his own attitude was by far more critical he had strongly attacked cel's 12 chapters back in the pamphlet war in early 431 and had been reluctant to accept theorious his subsequent condemnation but he clearly recognized that it would be disastrous to argue that there was something valuable in the Tome of Leo that was lacking in Cal instead he played along with the conviction of the majority that Cal of the yard stick of Orthodoxy uh he says again same Council again father price quote the fathers of Caledon were profusing their professions of loyalty to cill even when judging the Tome of Pope Leo their Criterion of Orthodoxy remained agreement with sirel this is clear throughout the lengthy discussion of the toome in the fourth session uh I'm going to move on to a couple of the historical examples that he brought up he brought up uh corinth's appeal to Rome I would simply ask why does Clement writing to Corinth Pro prove patrine Supremacy any more than Paul writing to Corinth proves Pauline Supremacy that would be my first question I would also say he brought up the Apostle John there is debate over whether or not the Apostle John was in Exile at the time um however the the fact that the Corinth was appealed to or sorry that Rome was appealed to by Corinth instead of John is actually irrelevant um Rome had appet Authority and eventually so so did many Patriarchs um Corinth is well within Rome's jurisdiction I know you had said it's not um so we're going have to maybe talk through that because they actually had legates representing ecumenical councils that were from Corinth so it's definitely well within their jurisdiction um you brought up a quote from irenaeus which like you said St irenaeus uh and in that quote it says that both Peter and Paul make Rome unique um when Vatican 1 specifically says it's the Sea of Peter I will also say with s s Rene is he um there's a a quote in the in against heresies where he talks about the lines of succession from the apostolic Seas having more Authority than the other seas and so saneus understood that there was this early early Doctrine um of apostolic Seas having more Authority than just like a normal sea and actually you see the same thing in St cyprien this this is why uh he actually has quotes that say that St Steven was had some authority over him it was St Steven came from an Apostolic sea and St cyprian did not um in regards to Victor's excommunication uus writes this in his ecclesiastical history quote among them two irenaeus writing in the name of the Christians whose leader he was in Gaul though he recommends at the mystery of the Lord's Resurrection be observed only on the Lord's day yet nevertheless irenaeus exhorts Victor suitably and at length not to excommunicate the whole Churches of God for following a tradition of ancient custom and he conferred by letter that this moted question not only with Victor but also with all the other rulers of the church end quote so we see again a consiliary model there actually were sin ODS in regards to the excommunication over um over this particular issue there were multiple synods prior I know when you mentioned the sin ODS you were talking about the adoptionist we can talk about that too uh irus additionally asserts uh regarding a pope previous to Victor I think it was the pope right before Victor on the same controversy he says quote Pope anticus conceeded to polycarp in the church the celebration of the Eucharist by way of showing him respect end quote so I would simply ask how how can you reconcile a pope conceeding to a non-pe another Bishop another Apostolic Bishop how can you justify a pope conceding to him um when brought up with the same issue um Aryan controversy I mean the Aran controversy is an extremely complicated situation obviously a St acius um was in hiding so that is why he had to appeal to Rome I don't know that appealing to Rome is really a problem for my argument at all though I would say that the fact that St athanasius was appealing to Rome um for support when he was in hiding when there was hundreds and hundreds maybe even thousands of Aryan Bishops in the East that's not really a problem for an orthodox point of view the fact that he was appealing to a a sea that was maintaining Orthodoxy I already brought you brought Council of Sera I don't have any issue with the Council of Sera I think the sarda actually refutes the Vatican 1 view of the papacy like I said in my statement there would first be a a sentence by the neighboring Bishops then if the deposed Bishop feels the sentence was unfair he may appeal to the bishop of Rome because he's the first SE however as we see in Canon 3 and N he is just a review court if he determines that a retrial is necessary the final decision for the case is sent to a neighboring Province and the bishop of Rome is not even authorized to attend um as far as you brought up Ephesus 4:49 which is a really good point that you bring up um I would say that there were multiple local syns in both Alexandria and Rome that had declared that noorus was a heretic prior to the Pope's decree I would also say that uh St Cel felt completely comfortable um with his five toes against noorus being distributed throughout the churches and so his condemnation of noorus was being circled throughout all of Christendom and he had no issue with that um and then I asked some quotations from from Ephesus but I don't we'll see if I can come back to those in my time um main point is the councils that were held before the Pope's final decree by the letter of St Celestine all right this is a super important point I need to I need I really need everybody to pay attention very closely to this he used a lot of quotations really good look quotations that show this uh absolute language of the Pope being this you know the successor of Peter and Peter speaking through the pope and the Pope will never fail I really need to nail this point in in the absolute language that's used in these councils listen to this quote this is uh this is by Father Richard Price uh it says nor does my devotion suppose that any of the most devout Bishops are aware that not merely once or twice even more frequently on the matter for the instructions from the Divine and unviable head I informed everyone that all of the most devout Bishops should meet together and hold a common inquiry in into the precisions of the pious and Orthodox Faith the inviable head they're talking about is not the pope it's the emperor in this context it's the emperor so you have the PO the emperor is being called inviable unable to air um we see the same thing with the quotation I read earlier uh with the the use of Matthew chapter 16 being used for the emperor saying that and with the almighty who rules with you oh most devote Emperor you decide because you are appointed by God Rejoice O City of Zion Summit of the world and the Empire Constantine ornamented you with purple and crowned you with faith and the Gates of Hell shall not Prevail against your Orthodox Empire the early fathers were not anticipating that the Empire would ever fail they were not anticipating that any of this stuff would fail they were anticipating that this would maintain in in its same structure until the end so if you're going to hold absolute language to be interpreted literally you have to believe that somehow the Empire of Constantine the emperor is still ruling today that's what you'd have to believe um Ephesus 449 you talked about Ephesus 449 is a blatant robber synot I mean the patriarch of Constantinople was murdered during this Council um and yes of course the papal legates fled and and stated that they rejected the council the reason why this this is not an ecumenical council is because it was not affirmed by the Patriarchs including the pope um and then dioscorus you mentioned dioscorus he was deposed at kelon and replaced with a true patriarch so so caldon did have the approval and the affirmation of all five Patriarchs which is the definition of an ecumenical council as we see in NAA too um you brought up the libellus of horist uh we'll see how much time I have here um I'm just going to read patriarch John II of Constantinople says quote I accept the fact that the two most holy churches that is to say that of ancient Rome and of New Rome should be one I admit that the Sea of Peter and that of the Imperial City should be one so he's uniting Constantinople with Rome here um he was the only patriarch to sign off on this and it was with Imperial um influence was the only reason why he signed off on the libellus and none of the other Patriarchs signed off on it you mentioned Bishops none of the other Patriarchs signed off on it there is some contest in regards to the Greek of the LI Bellis um which I can read from Edward Denny's uh book in a little minute looks like I have 60 seconds left I think um correct okay um just trying to figure out what to focus on here here um yeah so Constantinople 2 um you had mentioned um or rather Constantinople 3 and with honorius I would just ask I know some Roman Catholics take the position that honorius was not actually a heretic some say he was so I would just ask which pope was correct um I know we're gonna Hash a lot of this stuff out in the in the uh the cross exam um oh trulo I'm going to finish on this you mentioned true low was not accepted by multiple popes um that's fine it was accepted by Pope hadrien in Nia 2 it was read in its entirety and affirmed by the council at nc2 and an ecumenical council of Pope affirmed it all right so now we are going to move on to the next part of the debate which is going to be the cross-examination period um so Alex you're going to begin 25 minutes of cross-examining Luigi um and you know y'all can be pretty flexible here though but just traditionally the format would be um Alex you would ask questions Ben you would respond to them traditionally you know the person responding doesn't ask questions they just respond um but you know I allow for some flexibility if y'all want that uh if if y'all want time to do that um okay so I got the timer here set for 25 minutes uh Alex if you are ready to begin questioning Luigi I'm ready to roll all right let's do it let's begin okay so Luigi you said that nice you too and Pope hadrien accepted the Council of trulo was Pope hadrien the first pope to accept the Council of trulo uh I don't know that that's relevant because um it's it was read in its entirety and affirmed by the Pope in an ecumenical council and so just the fact that it was in an ecumenical council makes it therefore more more authoritative than just a pope accepting it or not accepting it so I would say that's not relevant and did the Council of n seea too accept trulo as being an ecumenical Universal Council for all I'm not I'm not necessarily making that argument I'm saying the council was read in its entirety and then affirmed said we find no error with this Council so it was read in its entirety and then affirmed by n right are you aware that Pope Constantine long before Pope hadrien actually uh accepted trulo and he said that it only applied to the Church of the East and that it's not Universal are you aware of that yeah yeah I mean again I don't think that has any relevance to the fact it doesn't refute the fact that it was affirmed by NAA 2 in an ecumenical council I don't think that refutes that but you're also aware that before uh Pope Constantine accepted it two previous popes uh John iith and the pope before him they rejected the Council of trulo and all of the churches in the East um they respected uh that uh uh that authority of the Pope that he rejected the councils because they weren't considered um authoritative until after Pope Constantine uh accepted accepted them you're aware of that correct yeah yes but again this does no relevant there was there's many there's much much dispute over what councils are accepted and what not accepted but when an ecumenical council affirmed by a pope affirms a council that means the council's authoritative this is why you as a Roman Catholic accept Caledon or not Caledon um Carthage uh 397 for example um and so just because there's dispute over whether or not a local council is is authoritative doesn't matter if an ecumenical council read it reads it in its entirety and affirms it um is the pope above councils or I'm sorry uh is the pope above cannons or cannons above the pope um I would reject that dichotomy I would say that the consilium council is above the Pope uh that's not what I asked I asked are cannons above the pope ecumenical cannons uh cannons at all yeah I mean it has to be an ecumenical Cannon affirmed by the five Patriarchs it can only be an e ecumenical Cannon affirmed by the five Patriarchs okay um why do we consider Ephesus to be ecumenical when we had a patriarchy that didn't accept Ephesus all the Patriarchs accepted Ephesus all the valid Patriarchs eventually did accept Ephesus that's the Ephesus Ephesus was ratified as an eum Council apart from the church of Antioch and everybody accepted that but Antioch didn't accept it the same thing is true for the Council of caladon um there was a patriarch there that didn't accept it so when you say that NAIA 2 says that all the Patriarchs um need to uh accept a council does that apply for all time from the very beginning or is that just a canonical law that isn't uh definitive it isn't something that is um part of a Divine constitution of the church it's just something that they uh said uh to go forward because we know that it's not true with uh the early ecumenical councils no again the valid Patriarchs did affirm the council again with with uh celedon for example dioscorus was deposed at Ephesus and the Egyptian Bishops were actually the ones who brought forth the the true a true patriarch that did affirm the council so you would have to argue I mean first I would say that that's not true about epis and Calon and then on second I would say you would have to disagree with the definition of an ecumenical council that NAA 2 gives You' have to say that NAA 2 is wrong about its definition of an ecumenical council okay um you talked a lot about a lot of the language that was used about uh the um the Roman Emperor um you don't affirm ceso papism do you um I mean how Define it ceso papism basically means that the emperor the Roman Emperor is the one who calls all of the shot all of the shots in Jesus Christ Church oh I would I would affirm um the I love the quote by uh by Theodore the studite I mean when he says that the emperor is there to Aid as the final acclamation and that's really what we see in Constantinople 3 when when actually Pope uh agatho himself says that was Pope Agatha who says the Holy Spirit was guiding you by his authority with the Imperial pen when he's speaking to the emperor so Pope hadrien understood or Pope agatho understood this and the the Bishops of of Constantinople 2 and three understood this so that's what my view would be on that so what happened in the 4th century when the Roman Emperor was an Aryan and he opposed all of the Orthodox Bishops and put in uh Aryan Bishops was the Roman Emperor infallible then like as the quotes have said as the quotes that you've brought up have said about him yeah yeah I'm not arguing that the emperor is infallible I'm arguing that they were using absolute language and it's not to be taken literally I mean Pope Felix II was an an Iranian as well um and so there are examples of of falling into error um this does not refute the overarching uh testimony of these councils that the final acclamation of the ecumenical council by the emperor and by the Patriarchs and by the pope is what makes it authoritative and that that is infallible did Pope Felix the second teach aryanism in his magisterium that that's irrelevant I mean did did the emperor teach arianism in his magisterium I mean this is like the point go ahead I I feel like you might be attacking a strong man because I'm not arguing that like okay then let's move on to's let's move on to something else then what does it mean that the pope is merely the first among equals yeah so I would say that this would be akin to the Nazi in the Old Testament that's where we see the continuity um where it was still held in the Sanhedrin but there was a head of that Sanhedrin um what we see the Byzantine two headed eagle um is the Emperor and the and the pope and we see both of these affirming the acumenical Council and that's and that along with the Patriarchs then makes it acumenical um so I don't know if that answers your question okay I'm going to read you a quote from um an orthodox priest and canonist he's a scholar his name is Father John H Eriksson I'm going to read you this quote and I want you to tell me what you make of it he says this while the patriarch of Constantinople is acknowledged by all as first among equals what this priority involves in the actual life of the Orthodox Churches is by no means clear uh so what do you make of that quote the patriarch of Constantinople being the first it says yeah the patriarch talking about like second like second Millennium when Rome when Rome Schism and is that is that what the context of this is or like it would have to be because it says the patriarch of Constantinople is acknowledged as the first among equals which the Orthodox today acknowledge Him as that but it says here that that is not clear uh the scholar in Canada is saying that it's not clear what that even means sure for example can the patriarch of constan op make other churches ailis well actually um that actually happens in Ephesus 431 um churches are granted Auto seus at that Council um but I said uh the patriarch of Constantinople by himself just what do you make of that quote no we would never say that um we would say that it always is to be I mean we would affirm what sarda does that the first C uh operates as the first am among equals but always in the model of a sinod always with with left and right lateral uh accountabilities if the pope is um if the pope doesn't have Universal jurisdiction how did Pope St Victor excommunicate the auditus of Byzantium by his own authority apart from the bishop of Byzantium yeah was this you're talking about the the issue of the Asia Minor with with Asia Minor this was actually before that this was something else yeah um so I would say this right um I mean I already read to you the pope right before St vict uh before Pope Victor um he actually concedes to polycarp polycarp's Authority and so I would say that in those really early days the apostolic Seas did they were perceived as having more Authority um the Seas of for example when Stephen has authority over cyprien early on and those early quotes that Roman Catholics love to use of of St cyprian um what he's referencing is the apostolic authority of Steven um that also is found with st polycarp which is why Pope in just recognizes that Authority so I do think that you would find it doesn't shock me that in those early days you would find the apostolic Seas operating in that sense that does that I think well I I'll save that for my my cross- exam and that would also apply to St Victor being able to call a c Senate and asiia minor by his own authority uh so now are you talking about the cter decions or are you still talking about the adoptions yeah yeah and this in this yeah he called the senate in Asia Minor according to uh uus uh that he called it by his own authority M yeah yeah yeah so the quarter desine issue um again I I I read the quotation from St uh or sorry not St uus um in regards to St irenaeus when he exhorts him and then he says that he wrote to all of the rulers of the church including Victor um and so I would say you still find in that scenario a consiliary model I want to read to you um I'm going to read to you two cannons from sarda and I want you to tell me what you think Canon for says this if a bishop is sentenced with deposition in a case by a verdict of those Bishops who have seiz in neighboring places and if the deposed Bishop announces that his case is to be examined by the city of Rome then uh the execution of the sentence is suspended and that a replacement Bishop shall not be uh ordained to the Sea of the deposed Bishop until after the case has been determined in the Judgment of the bishop of Rome that's Canon 4 Canon 7 says this if a bishop is osed from his office by Bishops of his region acting as a court and if the deposed Bishop takes Refuge with the bishop of Rome and seeks recourse by asking the bishop of Rome for a retrial and if the bishop of Rome decides that the case should be retried then the bishop of Rome May write to those Bishops of a neighboring Province to investigate uh conduct and conduct a retrial the deposed Bishop may ask the bishop of Rome to delicate priests to the retrial at his discretion the bishop of Rome can send priests acting his legates with his authority to serve as judges in cases where the bishop of Rome decides that the Bishops of an neighboring Province alone are insufficient um so what do you make of those two canons yeah so what's happening here is a bishop who is deposed is appealing first to their neighboring Bishops uh if he doesn't like the decision of those neighboring Bishops he then can appeal to the first seat which is how the first seat operates now the pope then as the first SE analyzes the situation and if he determines that a retrial is authorized is necessary then he sends that actual retrial the actual appeal then goes to another neighboring Province and he then is able to send legates but he doesn't even attend that so the final appeal is is made in a council it's made in a sinod um I mean Canon n says that it's that it's sent to the court um for the final final declaration and and that final uh declaration that final decision cannot be overturned by any singular bishop or Senate of Bishops or councils correct I would I don't know if I'm comfortable saying that well well let me read a let me read some quotes from you because I actually read this in the opening statement uh this is from Pope St bonfice where he says um we have directed to the Senate of Corinth such writings that all Brethren may know there is to be no review of our judgment in fact it has never been listed to deliberate again on that which has w once been decided by the apostolic sea and he also says um uh writing to the Eastern Bishops of thessalonica it is certain that the Roman Church is as it were like the head of its members for the churches spread throughout the whole world and if anyone Cuts himself off from her he e exiled from the Christian religion since he no longer can share in the same Fellowship so in the first quote he is saying that uh the uh decisions of Rome cannot be appealed cannot be overturned cannot that that's it that's where the buck stops and then he says that if you uh depart from this that you're no longer part of the Christian religion what do you make of that yeah and and and one one other quick thing he says that no one has ever boldly raised his hands against the apostolic Eminence from whose judgments it is not permissible to descent no one has rebelled against this who did not wish judgment to be passed upon him and this was accepted by all of the other churches what do you say about that yeah yeah so I think it's it's easy to read quotes like that and and kind of get an idea that that was the model of the of the early church but what I would contrast that with is the Malaysian Schism um where Rome was on the wrong side and it wasn't until um in fact they were the only ones that weren't in communion with the church uh after Constantinople 1 in 381 um the bishop that they had appointed penius was not recognized as the true Bishop the true patriarch of Antioch uh instead it was uh St flavian who was recognized as the true Bishop of Antioch um and so the council decides then Alexandria submits to the decision Rome attempts to uh override this and I can actually if you'll let me I can read their response um uh back to it this is in this uh the synical letter of Constantinople one this is their response to to Rome trying to assert this Authority it says although with one voice of consent and respect the Bishops of the province and of the Eastern dicese have met together and canonically ordained this Reverend and most religious flavian as Bishop over the most ancient and truly Apostolic Church in Syria where the first Noble name Christian was given this rightful ordination was received the sanction of the general Council so again the bishop of Rome tries to appoint his own Bishop in Antioch who's penus the council says no it's flavian and this was their response when Rome tries to assert that Authority it wasn't until several years later that Rome finally submits to the rest of the church they were out of communion with the true patriarch of Antioch but Antioch was still in communion with the true church so this idea that you have to be with Rome to be in communion with the true church is is not found in history it contradicts history um if the pope doesn't have Universal jurisdiction how is Pope St Martin how was he able to replace nearly the entire patriarches of both Antioch and Jerusalem by his own authority you're talking about um after the latan council uh yeah Pope St Martin was able to uh send delegates into antiarch and Jerusalem and he replaced pretty much the both of those Patriarchs I I guess I I don't understand why Roman Catholics bring up a lad in the first place because this was attempted to be ecumenical by the pope um but yeah I mean I I I would just say that that is that's again that's that's him operating as as the first SE I I'm not disputing a level of appet authority here so by the so by the first SE then you would agree that he has the authority to do what he did what pope St Martin did then um I mean just just out of just out of a little bit of ignorance on exactly what that situation was I'd say yes but I would say again that Lin 649 is a is a is a really hard one for a Papal apologist because this was tried to be made ecumenical and and it was rejected as ecumenical by the rest of the church so you uh so the answer to that was yes all I'm going to say is that that's actually is what what Vatican would uh would teach that's part of what papal Primacy is um so can the PO can the pope um Can the pope lose his Primacy and if so who decides that no no well hang on I would just clarify I would say that's not all that Vatican 1 claims so just be that's not that's still not immediate that's still not immediate authority over the consent of the church that's what you're trying to prove so yeah a pope being able to go into the P two different patriarchies at the same time and just completely take everyone out and put people back in that's not uh Universal um that's not immediate jurisdiction well it is immediate but it's not immediate over the consent of the church there was no there was no consent of the church that was that was trying to dispute this did Pope St Martin ask for the consent of the church or I mean not that I'm aware of you not that so Pope St Martin believed that he had the authority to do this without having to consult any of the other Patriarchs like uh like Alexandria or or uh Constantinople does he have the authority to do what so Pope St Martin believed that he had the authority to do this without having to consent with Antioch or Constantinople um I mean yeah again like I would say that's him operating as the first se but that's not all that Vatican 1 claims that's what I'm saying I'm saying that that isn't that is an operation I you I can show you examples of I mean I can show you examples of Constantinople being appealed to when they were in when they were in a Roman jurisdiction I can show you examples of that and so and those were the Patriot of Constantinople operates without a council in those examples can you show me any cannons in the church that say that um any other Bishop besides the bishop of Rome can be appealed to and that that decision would be the final authoritative decision the the the patriarch of Constantinople any any Bishop besides the bishop of canons three canons 9 and 17 of Constantinople 1 uh Canon three of Constantinople 1 Canon 28 of Caledon so are you aware that Canon 3 of Constantinople 1 was rejected when Constantinople 1 was made ecumenical at the Council of Ephesus and Canon 28 of caldon was rejected by Pope St Leo um he just outright rejected it and the patriarch of Constantinople bowed to Pope St Leo's Authority and Canon 28 was never received um in the uh in the Christian church after the Council of G that that's not true um in the fifth century compilation of the of the Cannons the pris of Verio uh the Cannons of of caladon were compiled and Canon 28 was included and so actually the fact that Pope Leo attempted to remove it is actually a a major disservice to the authority because the church did accept it in factus in that very Council states that uh the pope had already accepted it in reference to Constantinople 1 Canon 3 but I but I I also brought up canons 9 and 17 which bring up the Apple at authority of Constantinople so it wasn't those were accepted certainly accepted by every yeah and but you are aware that Constantinople 1 wasn't ever considered ecumenical until it was made ecumenical that the council of of Caledon so it was considered to be something that was only Regional caldon is what made um Constantinople one um ecumenical for example even at the Council of Ephesus the Council of Ephesus didn't recognize Constantinople 1 as having been ecumenical because when the Council of Ephesus uh recites the uh the Creed it isn't the Creed from Constantinople 1 it's still using the Creed from Nia one so Constantinople one wasn't an ecumenical council yet so those cannons weren't universally bind but at ecumenical councils uh those cannons when they were brought up were rejected by the pope Canon 3 and Canon 28 uh of cdon were both rejected and again um the uh the emperor I'm sorry not the emperor the uh the patriarch of Constantinople Al keep keep it in the form of a question though if you don't okay um are you aware that uh when Canon 28 was uh uh reinserted into the East it wasn't in a cesal law but it was actually uh uh inserted in um the Civil uh Roman law I think it's Nolla 131 are you aware that it was never accepted by the church it was accepted by the by the uh civil law it it was accepted by the church I mean again and and actually I would argue is accepted by the the western church as well because even at Florence um they they refer to the Cannons that uh make Constantinople the second sea right behind Rome there's only one can singular there's only one Canon it's Constantin one Canon 3 the only other Canon that could be being talked about at Florence is Canon 28 of caladon so I would actually argue there's a debate to be had whether it was even accepted in the west so actually um that Cannon was accepted before the Council of Florence at the Council of Constantinople 4 in 869 and that was finally when the pope uh allowed it and allowed the cannon after it had been rejected um since since the very beginning you are aware of that right that Constantinople 4 was the the first time that Canon 28 was accepted by the Christian church not just the uh the civil law of the Roman Empire I I reject uh 869 as Constantin no 4 constant 4 is 879 uh I didn't ask you if you accepted this Council as ecumenical but I just ask you if you're aware that 869 was the first time that a council that was accepted by by Rome um was the first time that they affirmed uh Canon 28 of Caledon you are aware of that well sure I mean that that does detriment to the fact that Pope Leo rejected but another Pope accepts it so it only does it only does detriment if uh if the Popes are under canon law but because Popes are above Canal La it actually proves Vatican 1 um because you would agree then that now in the uh would you agree that in the first Millennia we have instances of popes that rejected cannons and then later popes that accepted those cannons such as Canon 28 of Caledon and the Cannons of trulo you're you would agree with that right yes but the pope can is above canon law no no no I I don't agree that the church was accepting Pope Leo's determination that this wasn't a Canon because again we find it in the Pisco Vero uh compilation in the fifth century so I don't I don't accept that assertion because a council just because a council accepts it and a pope accepts it I I think that's detrimental to the to the papal apologist trying to argue so was Pope Leo right or was the or was the pope of 869 right um so there were both right because they both at their times had author and and you know what this is my cross-examination please ask me that when you ask when you ask your question yeah yes yeah yeah yeah but I'm having so much fun I hope you're having a good time too um so why hasn't the Orthodox Church been able to hold even a single ecumenical council since the Schism while the Catholic church has continued to have them well uh they just don't call it euman they call it pan Orthodox so in 1672 which is affirmed by all the all uh all the Patriarchs um is considered to be authoritative uh and they call it pan Orthodox Council not ecumenical um so it's still an authoritative binding counil so I would just say that the the magisterium itself is is slow um but that's because there's checks and balances just like there was in the first first Millennium why was it that in the first Millennium they could have a total of seven but in the last Millennium they were only able to have according to you just one well because the whole purpose of The ecumenical councils was to establish a sealed set of Dogma and so like even the very fact that a pope can go in and and and say that a cannon is either invalid or valid of an ecuminical council is actually incredibly dangerous I mean at that point like I'm always told that a pope can only do that which his uh tradition has has preserved but you're telling me now that a pope in in 869 went in and uh affirmed a cannon of an ecumenical council that was already rejected by a previous po yeah this would be the last question that I asked you was uh Canon 28 of kelon that have anything to do with matters of Dogma matters of Faith or morals uh it had it specifically uses the word Authority but but did it have anything to do with actually matters of the Faith with like dogmatized anything or anything having to do with morals again I mean it's the it Authority gives you Authority is a brad the question is simple does that Cannon have anything to do with what we read in divine revelation or with what uh or anything that has to do with with morals yes I would say that's what author what does what is it that's in divine revelation that that Canon 28 of cadon addresses where is it in divine revelation in scripture or tradition that the uh sea of Constantinople is second place to Rome where where is that in divine revelation where is that in divine revelation that yes where did God reveal that but Luigi you can finish answering the question that will yeah I I would are as in divine revelation like I mean the Canon of eal Council being Constantinople 1 we find the same thing in the canical Council of Constantinople 1 so all right so now Luigi you have 25 minutes let me know whenever you're ready for me to start the timer and and and keep in mind again um we we you know Luigi you'll do the form of a question uh Alex you'll you'll just respond you won't you know pose any questions to L right right cool okay all right I'm ready okay all right Alex so how do you justify all the ancient cannons such as Antioch um sarda and the ancient Apostolic cannons such as 34 requiring the consent of the church when binding on matters of Faith um I would say that that's perfectly U inine with uh the postc conciliar church because of the way that the post-conciliar church uh what it teaches about the magisterium that uh the pope isn't the only one that uh that is an organ of the magisterium all of the Bishops that are in communion um with the church um they all are organs of the magisterium so back then that was before the Schism so all of the Bishops were in communion with him so um that is perfectly uh um consistent with what Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 teach I I don't agree uh Vatican 1 specifically says um that his authority is irreformable of himself and not from the consent of the church and then the apostolic Cannon says he must receive the consent of the church so which which which is it the apostolic Cannon says that the bishop of Rome must conceive the first it says the first SE must receive the consent of the church Apostolic Canon 34 right you're aware that the apostolic cannons actually weren't received in the west correct so you reject so just to be clear so you reject the oldest attestation we have of consiliary authority so you you do realize that the apostolic cannons don't come from the apostles themselves and they were written much later on around the time of arguing that they're from the apostles just like the Apostles Creed wasn't but it's Apostolic tradition that is preserved in the in the Cannons um and so I just want to be clear so you're rejecting Apostolic Canon 34 and the Council of art Antioch and the Council of sarda um I reject them as being universally binding because they were never considered to be universally binding by the church well the the I mean stica was affirmed by the West right because right s because the West called sorda right yes and I mean the the cannons are quoted frequently actually um in other cils so so just be clear so you believe that Apostolic Canon 34 is wrong uh if a Apostolic Canon 34 I wouldn't say that it's wrong I would just say that it isn't binding universally um it wasn't Bing on The Universal Church it could apply in a sense at a more local level okay and and I will concede that um of the apostolic cannons I believe the first 50 of them uh were considered to to be because the apostolic cannons came from an earlier Council I forget what it's called but it is authentic in the first 50 of them we're considered to be authentic um it just doesn't uh apply at the universal level okay so now you're saying it's authentic but you just don't believe that it's binding on a universal level when it's talking about the first SE though so how can it not be talking about the universal level if it's talking about the first SE because the first SE didn't accept it the can could be about the first se but the first SE didn't accept it the the first did accept it that's I mean this was this is what we find in CA which was affirmed by the pope so uh the first so the first C accepted certain councils of of C certain Cannons of the apostolic cannons that were in sardica but uh to my knowledge I don't believe that that specific Canon is in the Council of stica or am I wrong no no no I'm not saying the Canon itself is but the concept of the consent being required in a in a sinod that was what was necessary but Ina yes it is it's in Canon 3 and nine of sarda yeah so Canon 3 uh can you can we over with your we went over we went over this with your with your cross exam I don't think I quoted Canon 3 though right because I know that Canon 3 actually bolsters the papal claims but I would say that Canon 3 I could I can we can accept all of sarda because the first SE uh the Church of Rome accepted it okay well again I say that the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 says the same thing it says that the that the first C must receive the consent of all so I'll let the audience make their determination on and and there is an orthodox way to actually be able to understand that um the first SE having to receive uh the consent of all you could say that that fits in with Vatican 1 because the pope uh does represent the entire universal church so you could say that if the Pope says it that is the consent of all represents the the pope represents the universal church we're going in circles but Vatican 1 says it's not from the consent of the church church but I'm going to move on um why wasn't latter in 649 accepted as ecumenical if this is the Pope's intention uh refresh my memory latter in 649 was the council that I know what you're I have so many councils in my mind say it again they were trying to address monothelitism as a as a ecumenical council oh right so po attempted to make it ecumenical right so the council itself wasn't accepted as ecumenical but the actual teachings uh um condemning the monolite heresy were considered to be definitive no not until so first of all the monothelitism did not meet a formal anatha until 681 at Constantinople 3 and Constantinople 3 doesn't even mention lerin as even remotely authoritative but it actually does mention the pope who held lerin 649 saying that he had already definitively um that he had already definitively settled monop heresy and I I quoted that I'm see if I can find it again but I did quote it in my uh I did quote it I think in my opening statement I'll see if I can find it really quick but uh if you want to move on feel free I don't want to eat up your time yeah I'm gonna move on then um what is what is your justification for why Pope anteus concedes to St po carp on the topic of the court of desmans why would a pope ever concede to another Bishop um because the uh the the quarter disine controversy was when he learned that um the uh those Christians uh they were holding to a human Apostolic tradition and he said fine let it be and Pope St Victor actually did this same thing after initially threatening to excommunicate them um because the pope has that Authority no no no I I don't think you so so uh Asia Minor was operating there was the Cod decions that were operating in the sense that no no matter when niss 14 fell um that was when they were going to celebrate Easter and the pope was opposed to this I don't want I'm not saying that Pope anas was approving of this he was opposed to this but when polycarp when polycarp comes forth and confronts the pope on trying to excommunicate them over this he con seeds to polycarp right so so it's not that he didn't agree he agreed that this was wrong that this was the wrong way to celebrate it pop anus was not approving of this but he still concedes the polycarp even though he believed this to be wrong he believed AIA monor to be in error yeah because the um the from the earliest times of the church the church in the west believed that the churches in the East could have their own lurgical traditions in the same way that the uh Eastern Catholic Church that I belong to has its own lurgical commemorations that don't line up with the lurgical Comm and why why would you ever argue that Victor was so it's either Victor was right or anticus was right who which one was right because Victor believed he did have that Authority no uh an anthus did as well he just chose not to exercise it in the same way that Victor chose not to exercise it because when they both found out that um the reason they were celebrating it on the day was because uh John and Philip the apostles uh were using that calendar they both said okay so it's a human Apostolic tradition we can let it be human Apostolic Traditions don't have to be changed but they can be because for example the churches in Asia Minor eventually did change that tradition and they moved over to the to the Julian calendar as well at the Council of of NAA so even uh uh Traditions that come from the apostles themselves if they're human Apostolic Traditions not Divine Apostolic Traditions they can be changed if if it's necessary it's rare but it has happened but the point is that it was over the same issue and have one Pope we have one Pope who again decides not to ex only when polycarp comes and vouches for him yeah and the same thing happened with with Victor because saus came Dev vouch for the church in ER in Asia Minor exactly because the popes just weren't aware that that was the tradition of the Apostles they just didn't know so um when they found out that it was like I said said okay that doesn't answer why Pope anus was comfortable conceding to another SE uh that that's isn't something that's out of the ordinary uh if he was able to concede to another SE it just means that he said okay this other sea um is correct that's actually a really good he didn't believe he was correct hang on that's that's the point though he didn't believe that he was correct he believed that they were still wrong the asan minor churches were wrong but he still concedes to polycarp because this isn't a matter this isn't a matter of divine Apostolic tradition it's a a matter of human Apostolic tradition because even uh uh Pope Victor same thing he's he beli that they were wrong but he still let them be because it's not it's not a hill to die on it's not an issue of what is revealed by God um is this isn't my cross exam but I would say that the date of Easter isn't something that was revealed it's not in the Bible it's not in the deposit of Faith it's not in a sacred tradition it's uh these are human Traditions that came from the apostles in the same way that like the sign of the cross is a human tradition and those can be led be but again if the pope wanted to he could change them and and they have been changed over the last 2,000 years some uh human Apostolic traditions for example like facing ad Oriental during the Liturgy that goes back to Christ and the apostles but not all of the apostolic churches do that anymore and and that's fine I'll let the audience make their determination on that one all right uh let's move on so uh Thomas aquinus was heavily influenced by papal forgeries in his work against the a of the Greeks the Council of Trent references them in session 22 to justify the pope is the sole source of jurisdiction in the church and Pope Leo the 9th references the Donation of Constantine in his letter to the patriarch Constantinople on the eve of the Schism in 1054 so my question for you is you wouldn't Forge a deed to a house if you already own the house and you certainly wouldn't use a forge deed to prove you own a house that you legitimately own so why did a supposedly infallible Council and multiple highly influential Western Saints reference Forge documents to prove the papacy um well if you actually go back to the and I'm going to answer your question but I just want to say that everything that proves the papacy can be found in all of the uh in most of the councils before those documents were forged um and the infallible uh councils this is what I what everyone needs to understand is that infallibility only pertains to matters of faith and morals not even matters of fact so if a council is using a forgeries and let's say that a council pronounces on matters of of of of Doctrine on dogmatic matters of faith and morals those uh decrees that uh the councils or even the pope by himself uh those decrees that are made are protected by the Holy Spirit and they're not going to be wrong even if uh the the uh documents that are being used are uh spirous um so uh the church isn't protected in matters of fact the church is only protected only infallible in matters of faith and morals in the same way that when the Council of Ephesus um condemned noorus as a heretic we know now looking back that the council was actually incorrect it turns out that historious wasn't an historian but the council still uh condemned him as as an historian and they were wrong in the same way that when Constantinople 3 condemned honorius we actually know now that orus didn't hold to that heresy the council was wrong because councils can Heir and matters of fact because there isn't anything divine revelation that says that honorius is a heretic or noorian is a noorian um there's nothing in divine revelation that says that so um the church can't air in those kind of matters okay so couple things first of all noorus was was not a historian in the sense that he believed that Christ was two persons but he did reject the term theotokos and that that that is what makes him logically still an historian so it was correct to condemn him as a heresy and guilty of that that heresy um but I didn't feel like you answered the actual question that I'm that I'm really trying to get at which is why why were these forgeries specifically let's let's zero in on on Pope Leo the nth when he references the Donation of Constantine he doesn't reference the letter of oh sorry my camera um he doesn't reference the letter of Pope Celestine doesn't reference the letter of Pope agatho his justification is the Donation of Constantine so why did he feel the need to utilize something that doesn't exist I'm not saying he didn't I'm not saying he thought it was legitimate but why did he feel the need to reference something that had stronger language than these other genuine examples um I I would even go as far as to say that he did think it was legitimate because everyone in those days thought that it was legitimate and and the reason that he appealed to it is because the truths that are found in those forgeries are still true because there actually are found since the very beginning of the church um before those forgeries were ever even written so if you find a forgery that says something in it that happens to be true um you can't be faulted for using the forgery because the one thing that it says that is true can be proven um throughout the last 200,000 years and and as far as the Donation of Constantine goes um there's something that I could actually flip to that I can read really quick um it says this Donation of Constantine um scholar Henry Chadwick says that um one quick second I'm trying to find and if you wanted to move on I don't I don't want to eat up your time here yeah go ahead no problem actually go ahead read read your quotation I'm just trying I'm trying to find it it's right here like on page I think it's on page 120 let me find it really really quick I I really don't want to eat up your time then so if you wanna let me see if I could find it yeah all right uh the cons of vilus um which cons of vilus was X cathedra both meet the requirement so the uh constitu of Pope V Julius actually uh they all taught the same thing and let me explain well well no actually let me explain how how they actually did because um the the uh documents that Pope V Julius wrote during the Council of Constantinople 2 they all maintained the Orthodox Faith this is where we get into the distinction between matters of uh revealed uh uh Doctrine and matters of um of fact so so we know that in one constitu he rejected the three chapters right in the first one he rejected the three chapters but that caused a Schism in Rome so he pulled it back because he didn't want there to be a schis judic that was the judic the judic I'm sorry and then in the next one right he was trying to defend the three chapters but how did he do it when he wrote the second document he was defending the three chapters by trying to make them sound Orthodox trying to make them sound in line with uh Pope Leo's toe so um whether he was rejecting the three chapters or whether he was trying to defend the three chapters what he is doing in both of those instances is obtaining uh is maintaining the Orthodox Faith uh the faith of of Caledon Caledonian Christianity in the same way that the council can Heir in um in rejecting uh Pope noorus the uh by uh by um by condemning him uh the he could technically air by uh affirming something that might be in substance heretical but his understanding of it would actually be uh be Orthodox because again they're not infallible in matters of fact they're infallible in matters of of faith and morals matters of okay so just I just want to really clarify for the audience the timeline here so then I'm GNA ask my question that has to do with this because really need to clear this up the judicium was two years prior of the council it moderately condemned the three chapters then during the council he issues the his first constitu him which does condemn the three chapters but however he tries to maintain the authors the three authors of the three chapters as Saints he tries to maintain them as Saints so then the council in response back says you don't have this Apostolic authority over us two is better than one that whole quotation I read um and so then they then proceed to condemn the authors of the three chapters as Heretics and then a year later or a little less than a year later is when vigilus issues his final consum which does contradict his former one because it does uh uh say that the Heretics the three authors were Heretics so you do have one that says they were not Heretics and one that says they were they're conflicting constitu so which one was which one was the true one that was asserted by the apostolic Authority so they they they contradicted themselves in matters of fact but not in matters of Faith he was defending the Orthodox faith in both so you could pick either or the the one where he accepted them as Saints is fine the one where he rejected them is fine because he was still upholding the Orthodox Faith um just like noorus really wasn't an historian and they condemned him wrongly poorus wasn't really a heretic either they condemn him wrongly you can technically affirm something that maybe is uh heretical and I do believe that the three chapters were heretical but if it's the interpretation that you give is is orthodox that interpretation of the Orthodox faith is what that so you can you can pick either or the Orthodox Faith still stands so you would not put um a saint someone someone either being a saint or a or a heretic this means that someone that could be interceding for you or they're literally a heretic those are the two options and you're saying that's not a matter that's just a simple matter of fact that's not a matter of Faith a simple matter of fact would be that somebody is in heaven interceding for you no I'm saying the the issue at hand is whether or not these individuals are either interceding for us or they Heretics that's right that's a and you're saying it's just simple a small little matter of fact that's all that is right so those three the three Theodor mes theor and the other guy they could be it's possible that they are in heaven interceding for us even if the church doesn't recognize them as being in heaven as interceding for us that's that's irrelevant to the point the point is that you're minimizing the dis distinction between the disparity between the first constitu and the second constitu you're saying it was just a simple matter of fact but this is much larger than a matter of fact this is this is three individuals who could be interceding people could have been asking for intercession I mean like and so this is not a small little matter of fact this is this is significant right so uh the point of the writings was actually let's just keep it in the form of questions again as a reminder okay gotcha right so the point is to uh of the writings was to obtain the Orthodox Faith whether uh the writings are going to canonize these guys as Saints or not is actually a separate matter and uh eventually they decide on not considering them uh uh Saints but that doesn't mean that they're not Saints it's possible that they could be Saints the church just just doesn't recognize okay but you're not you're you're missing the the overarching point here I would say that they didn't condemn them to hell because the church has never condemned anybody to hell what what I'm okay but here's what I'm asking right is the The Authority the apostolic sea was appealed to when he was making the con when he when he releases his first constitu right he says no one ought to question this going forth by the authority of the apostolic sea right so this we can move on my next question has to do with this so I'm going to stay right here okay so in the fifth ecumenical council in response back to vigilus States there's no other way to resolve matters of Faith but in a council with conciliar discussion how do you reconcile that with Vatican 1 they uh they wrote that to vilus right wrote back vilus and they say the only it's l they literally say there is no other way to resolve matters of faith MH but in common discussion this is their response this is the response to vilus when he tries to implement his Apostolic Authority uh this was after the second one right where he's trying to this is the first this is the constitu this was the one that that he gave them you were thinking of the judicium two years prior this is the constitu that was at the actual Council itself yes right so when I say the the the second one I mean the second of the three because there were three of them yes um uh so I would just say that Pope vilus um he rejected that he rejected what they wrote back to him because he continued to to uh write against the council and he continued to make uh uh decrees apart from the council that he consider them to be um he considered them to be authoritative so just because uh the acts of the councils might say this because the Roman Emperor said something it doesn't necessarily mean that those that it's that it's true to BL clear to be blatant clear are you saying the Bishops of Constantinople 2 were wrong to say that the only matter to resolve Faith the only way to resolve matters of faith is in a council are they wrong yes because there were matters to resolve Faith before the issue of Constantinople 2 that took place that were not in a council all of the times that the Bishops of Rome were able to universally uh settle matters of Doctrine okay and you also said that he continued to to stand by his first constitution but he doesn't so how do you reconcile that answer with the fact that he releases he finally does submit to the council when he releases his second Constitution well first of all I would say that he didn't submit to the council if you go back to my opening statement where I talk about it his writings don't even mention the council by name he ratifies it but he doesn't submit to the council in fact he uh he finally uh condemned the three chapters by his own authority without mentioning the council so he finally ratified the council but he in his writings it was clear that the bug stopped with him and he wasn't doing it because the council said you had to do it um he was doing it because he wanted he wanted to do it because he finally did it and then he ratified the council because it agreed with him if Pope vilus had never ratified the council would never be considered ecumenical by either of the Catholic or the Orthodox Churches okay how do you okay so I think I get to respond to that without without question okay yeah but it didn't the council didn't agree with him that's the point that's why the council was asserting this Authority uh of over over vigilus and you're and you already said they were wrong to do that but the point is the count you just said the council agreed with him no they didn't so how do you reconcile that well the council agreed with the in the sense that they wanted to uh they wanted to condemn the three chapters cuz you would say that the council the council condemned the three chapters and then Pope vilus eventually condemned the three chapters as well right so they both eventually did the same thing no no the three chap it was over the authors that was the disagreement the council disagreed with Pope vilus about the three authors right that's what they were disagreeing on right yeah and they could there could be a disagreement over we don't want to candidiz certain uh individuals as Saints and if the pope wanted to he could but if he didn't want to he doesn't have to because again just because the church doesn't canonize somebody as Saints doesn't mean that they're not Saints they could still be in heaven praying for us the church just doesn't officially uh recognize them so it's not it's not a hill to die on is what I'm saying well okay but the overarching point is a hill theion and that would be when they assert their authority over vigilus and then vigilus again he does and you can say submit you can say affirm but eventually he does does affirm the conclusion of the council and at no point at no point does do the Patriarchs apologize to him for asserting their authority over him at no point does he say they were wrong to do it um he just writes his second constitu and which does submit to what the council also decided um let's say that it agreed with the council decided not that he submitted to it because again in that second consit to him he doesn't even mention the council by name right it agrees with the coun and contradict his first constitu right yeah and and that's fine that can happen because again um the point of it it wasn't to it's not like the council was saying Pope vilus you need to condemn these guys to Hell uh Pope vilus is just now saying we're not going to recognize them as as Saints and that's all it is and that's fine because the pope doesn't need to recognize every person as a saint um again it just wasn't the hill to die on for vilus okay real real quick uh in this in the sixth ecumenical council was Pope honorius not a heretic or was Pope agatho wrong to condemn him as a heretic which which position you take so Pope agatho was wrong and the council was wrong to condemn him as a heretic because and I know that you popped up that that's actually not a big deal to say that because councils can Heir in matters of fact because Pope enorus being a heretic isn't something that is in the deposit of Faith there's nowhere in the Bible that you can turn to or an Apostolic tradition that you can go that says Pope enorus is a heretic so if the if the council can be wrong um in in condemning theorious it could be wrong in condemning aorus it was wrong in both counts and uh the fact is that councils can air not everything that they say is infallible only things that are part of the deposit of Faith matters of faith and morals all right that ends the uh cross-examination let's go ahead and transition to audience Q&A y'all make sure to send your questions to at reason and theology if you don't put at reason and theology at the beginning I likely won't uh recognize it as a question uh so go ahead and send those I do see a few already doing questions before closing statements we're gonna Clos statements after correct questions before at least that's what I had when y'all sent it to me Al y'all want to change I'm good with either we can do questions this is the most fun that I've ever had in my life and I'm like not lying Luigi brother you are my soulmate love you let's keep doing this every day for the rest of our lives I I needed this I need somebody that can I need you let's keep doing this please because this is like a blast this is uh uh you know this is everything I I wanted this to be so thank you Luigi man this is I I'm having a good time too and I give you credit because you found a hole in my knowledge which is the uh this late seventh century thing I'm gonna have to do more on that but but late Century what um the issue you were talking about in the late 7th Century after latter in 649 I got to I got to study that more so okay I got to do studying too man yeah you are you are my heads off to you brother you are the man so here's a question for both of y'all um Alex since you're normally starting first I guess I'll just start with you first then uh propose the same question to Luigi if we ought to reunite under which conditions would that have to be so starting with you Alex well we have plenty of examples in history of east and west reuniting you know with the Eastern Catholic churches I would say you know uh what Pope Benedict the 16th has said on the matter what Pope Francis has said on the matter you know all of the the dogmas that the Catholic church has uh defined the Eastern churches would have to recognize but the Eastern churches get to keep everything else their uh liturgies their Traditions their spirituality their Customs they get to keep all of it um so the the Eastern churches for them to come back into Community with Rome they don't lose anything they don't have to lose anything they're actually just gaining more so um I think that when you uh uh express it in that way I think that's a pretty attractive proposition you know if you're an Eastern Orthodox if you're an Eastern Christian and you say wow I get to keep everything that I have and then I get the universal magisterium and I get all of these other issues cleared up that the magisterium has already uh settled um that's something very attractive and and same question to you Lu yeah um I mean I think it can be humanism can be dangerous if it's Unity just for the sake of unity um we need to have Unity overr right um and I'm not saying you're not saying that I think you are um I would say that the the simple answer is we need to revert to the Church of the first Millennium and that is Rome Rome would be the first SE with an acknowledgement of a conciliar model with the other now well we have nine Patriarchs in the East now um and I would say that the filo uh would need to be removed from the Creed um but can still be affirmed theologically that's that's how I would answer that question okay um so here's one for you Luigi can you elaborate your response for why the Eastern Orthodox have had no ecumenical councils in the past thousand years or did you say one not sure but thank you and God bless you yeah God bless brother um so I would say a couple things to that yeah I mean so they would not call it an ecumenical council they call it a pan Orthodox Council the 1672 Council of Jerusalem which is received for all intents and purposes as ecumenical um however they just don't Al refer to it as ecumenical I would say that a large reason is there's a sealed set of Dogma that The ecumenical council served a purpose in um and that that can't be touched and that is what is upheld I Believe by the Eastern Orthodox church and so I would say there is a magisterium when in regards to interpreting certain things um but there isn't this uh de development of Doctrine uh that we see I believe in the Roman Catholic Church y'all send some more questions for Alex because I'm seeing a disproportionate amount for Luigi they're probably sick of hearing my voice M they're probably sick of me so it's I have no problem if because Luigi's the brand new guest so if they want to hear from him brother no no no issues with me man take the stage let's get it uh let's make sure to get it balanced here so I did see one for you um they ask Alex can you explain nestorianism again oh well nestorianism is the heresy that splits Jesus into two that there's a Divine Jesus and there's a human Jesus and the Orthodox view is that Jesus in his divinity is also fully man and Jesus in his humanity is also fully God and it was condemned at the Council of ephes in 431 U and they condemned the heresy Arc noorus but it turns out now the consensus in the scholarship is that historious wasn't actually an historian and it was the council fathers that misunderstood him so they wrongfully uh condemn theorious but they rightfully upheld the Orthodox Faith uh which is what we what me and Luigi were really contending over in in the matters of of Constantinople 2 and pop Julius um let's see question for both of y'all what single argument from the opposing side keeps you both both up at night the most starting with you Alex what single argument keeps me up the most H that's a really good question I got an answer if you want if you want to think go for it man you first I need to think about so you can think about it yeah yeah for me uh it's I would say it's the language of uh of Ephesus and NAA 2 and I guess Constantinople 3 when it talks about the Sea of Rome will will never erir um I would say that's a a good argument um but the problem with that argument would be the uh absolute language that we see with the Emperor as well so I would say it's a good argument I commend papal apologist for using it I just don't believe it ultimately holds water you know what I actually would say maybe the thing that actually keeps me up the most because this is actually true this does keep me up the most is the fact that schisms even happened the fact that the Church of Antioch thought that it didn't need to be United to Rome the fact that the church in Alexandria thought it didn't need to be United to Rome the fact that eventually the Church of Constantinople thought that it didn't be need to be United to Rome that keeps me up at night because I'm like thinking oh you know I mean if they didn't believe that it's necessary to be United to the pope maybe it's not necessary to be United to the pope maybe it's not true so just the fact that these schisms have persist have persisted since the fifth century that keeps me up at night and that's that's a tough one um voice of reason at least three ecumenical councils anathematized theorious and you claim he was wrongly condemned so the are The ecumenical councils fallible and the pope infallible The ecumenical councils are infallible when it comes to matters of faith and morals but ecumenical councils can Heir when it comes to matters of fact like for example uh The ecumenical council of NAA 2 also used uh certain forgeries as well right and we know that they're forgeries but those forgeries were still used at that ecumenical council are we going to say that NAA 2 is fallible because it used forgeries no we know that NAA 2 is infallible in what it decreed on matters of faith and morals but that doesn't mean that every single thing that it says or even the documents that it uses um are are going to be always uh uh legitimate remember the church is there to uphold the Christian faith the church isn't there to be correct on every single matter of fact pertaining to every single person that has ever been uh in the church uh question for Luigi if the papacy was false then why were the Eastern Orthodox in communion with it for so long and you've done a great job uh yeah I mean it so the argument is not that the papacy itself is false we obviously affirm Rome was the first SE of the first Millennium uh what we would say is that Rome fell into error um when they started affirming things that we don't find in the first Millennium such as authority over a council and not from the consent of the church so uh the papacy is not contested by Anybody Everybody Knows there was popes um St Peter was the first pope nobody contest this um however well nobody nobody that isn't a Protestant contest this um but uh what we would say is that this Doctrine developed to a point that was not a reflection of the first Millennium um okay let's see I'm scrolling through um there's a lot of questions here trying to keep them balanced so okay well here we go let's let's start with you Alex uh but it's question for for both of you um what are your opinions on the Oriental Orthodox beginning with you Alex um I love the Oriental Orthodox I love the um the you know Oriental tradition um and I'm really glad that those Schism have been partially healed and I want the entire Schism to be healed and for all of the Oriental Orthodox to be in community with Rome and and you Luigi yeah I mean I have a lot of respect for for the Oriental Orthodox tradition as well I have obviously issues with their affirmation of dioscorus when he affirmed uis at Ephesus 449 which they now acknowledge to be a heretic um but he presided over that Council which was a clear Robert cot I mean the patriarch of Constantinople was literally murdered during that Council so uh the fact that their supposed true patriarch presided over that I think is a massive issue for them and if F could say one more thing about them real quick Michael I would say that Oriental Orthodoxy and the Assyrian Church of the East both of those communions are actually more credible than even the the Eastern Orthodox communion just because um you know they only have you know 400 years um of of having accepted the papacy so they have less instances of accepting the papacy than the Eastern Orthodox have so I think that they are kind of more more credible than that sense just because they broke away a lot earlier than them if that means anything Luigi followup for that uh yeah I mean I would say that they don't have a definition of an ecumenical council and that's the P I mean I don't I believe the only consistent definition of an ecumenical council is the Eastern Orthodox when they say it has to be affirmed by every patriarch um and so I would say that they they fall short of that so and so yeah I would disagree with that Michael would you let me ask him a quick question or do we need to move on on the as long as Luigi's okay with it are you okay with it Luigi yeah yeah so so you're saying that um the uh e Orthodox definition of an ecumenical council is that it has to be affirmed by every patriarch but then you claim that the council that happened in the 17th century is they don't call it ecumenical but it's by all purposes ecumenical how is that possible if the patriarch of Rome wasn't involved can you explain that yeah yeah so uh well so the same way we would say that the fifth ecumenical council was ecumenical they would they saw the Sea of Rome as empty and so this is why at NAA 2 when it when it specifically gives uh credit to that Council as an ecumenical council it says it was affirmed by the four Patriarchs doesn't mention the pope um this is in NAA too um and I would say it also I I one other qualifier it has to be intended to be an ecumenical council just because something is affirmed by every patriarch doesn't automatically mean it's ecumenical has to be intended to be ecumenical and affirmed by every patriarch ah we can move on there's another question I wanted to ask you about Constantino for one then but that we can move on I don't want to turn this into another Q&A I was talk but yeah yeah but Constantinople one when it first happened wasn't ecumenical and it was later elevated to be ecumenical so that's that's the question that I would have but we can move on last word for Luigi and then we're moving on no if you wanted to respond what was the point I I got I got ADHD i t so so you said that there has to be an intent to be ecumenical right but Constantinople 1 in 381 wasn't ecumenical it was later elevated to be ecumenical so I just was would ask you how that fits in with that understanding I would just contest that I would say that okay um it was it was intended to be binding and ecumenical all right go ahead no no you get the last word I'm just letting Al know we're moving on after you yeah go ahead you know you you you can finish up Luigi oh no I'm good I'm good we can move on that was all I had on that okay gotcha all right um so who in the Orthodox okay so this is for you Luigi who in the Orthodox church has the authority to affirm councils if Patriarchs disagree or can they excommunicate each other if they dis yeah so I mean excommunication of another patriarch is I mean again we see this all over the early the early church the first Millennium um and so like in the Malaysian Schism we see this occurring um and so I would say that uh that that's not that absurd to have a patriarch ex communicate another patriarch but in order for something to be binding it has to be again it has to be affirmed by every patriarch so if eight affirm it and the ninth doesn't then it's not binding um and I don't know if they're referencing like the most recent with between rore and Constantinople if they are um this is actually very akin to what we see in the early church um I mean I'm likely going antiochian Orthodox which is in commune with both rore and Constantinople it's really just a political excommunication that doesn't affect a Le um and so it's very similar and Akin to what we see in the first Millennium um Alex what do you think is Luigi's strongest argument goas um I think he had a lot of really strong arguments I I think that he brought up a lot of the uh a lot of the ancient cannons um a lot of the U C uh specific uh instances in history um that I think are good but ultimately you know I don't think that they uh prove what needs to be proven um I would probably appeal just to just to certain cannons but you know even the Cannons that you appeal to like like Canon 28 of of caldon that still only gets you the second best still with Rome being first so it it it doesn't get you the way but nevertheless I I think he did have quite a few good arguments another one for you Alex how do you reconcile the fifth ecumenical council not willing to Define doctrine without an ecumenical council how do I reconcile the fifth Council not can you not willing to Define doctrine with I don't think I understand the question how do I'm trying to understand it too how do you reconcile not willing to Define doctrine without an ecumenical counil I think they're proposing that the fifth ecumenical council uh believed that you could only Define doctrine through an ecumenical council in other words you have to have an ecumenical council to Define doctrine is okay um so first of all the fifth ecumenical council um that was where a lay person the emperor he was calling all the shots all of the uh Patriarchs who were involved he had them in his back pocket um they were Patriarchs that were just going to agree with whatever he said so I would say that the council is Tainted in that regard but um ultimately I could just say that the council um would be incorrect and again don't be scandalized when I say that an ecumenical council can air in in in some respects because um an ecumenical council can be incorrect In things that have nothing to do with the with uh with the revealed truth um there isn't anything in divine revelation that says that uh doctrines can only be defined or settled at an ecumenical council and before the fifth ecumenical council you have plenty of instances um where uh singular Bishops and the pope um was able to uh Define doctrine all on his own for The Universal Church Without a council the next question is for you Luigi and thank you for the Super Chat regarding swans sona's biblical elim argument how does Luigi answer if uh biblical witnesses to or biblical witness Towers over historical witness where does the east go from there have they collectively engaged that argument yeah uh I mean I'm thinking referring to the Isaiah 22 typology with Matthew 16 which I grant um I I do grant that he is he's fulfilling Isaiah 22 um and I would say that uh I would well first of all I would direct you to the many debates that have been done on this topic already really good one by uh sar from Hamilton and Swan they have a good discussion about this I would Grant the typology that's how I would respond to that I don't have an issue with that and then I would point to every every Bishop being the high priest um and that Peter again is the prototype for what the uh Bishop is um and this is true for every Bishop which again is why we see the lines of succession of non- apostolic Seas like Jerusalem they always start with an ordination of Peter because he is the Prototype not a super Bishop he's the Proto Bishop um for the entire episcopacy uh oh you're muted you're muted I think Michael sorry about that I pr the wrong button yeah the Super Chat is from Jacob uh for Luigi would you consider becoming old Catholic why or what not uh no absolutely not um no I mean I think the strong arguments at the Schism such as the four of the five Patriarchs uh uh obviously remaining Eastern um I think the arguments are much better for Eastern Orthodoxy than for for old Catholic I also think that you there's just a lot of doctrine that you you'd have to deal with um and you'd have a hard time dealing with so no I would never consider old Catholic over Eastern Orthodoxy looking looking for a question here for for Alex uh um let's see for Alex acts 1519 Council James uses the word Keno or Judgment at the end of the council same word used in Matthew 1928 uh how is the do you say pet or how is Peter the judge well it's quite simple because even in like other ecumenical councils in most of them the pope wasn't even there and um it was um delegates that the pope would sent um and a lot of the delegates of the ecumenical councils weren't even from the Church of Rome and they were able to make these uh definitive pronouncements and they were indeed definitive because the pope you know still ratified them so Peter was there and James we I have no problem whatsoever with saying that James was the leader of the council which would be appropriate because James was the first Bishop there in Jerusalem if James said I it's my judgment that this is the truth and Peter accepted it that's that right there is what we see um you know that's paper ratification so there isn't an issue there uh question for Luigi where does Matthew 18 say Jesus gave the keys to all the apostles bind and loose does not equal Keys yeah yeah so um what I was saying was the power of the keys which is to bind and to loose is given to the whole church in Matthew chapter 18 um and that's what I was that's what I was specifically referencing okay um for Alex uh can you explain that Roman Catholic um to Luigi that it is not Roman Catholic there are different rights okay so yeah can you can you comment on the issue of different rights in Catholicism I well I am fairly sure that Luigi is aware well aware that in the Catholic Church there are it's not just Roman Catholics usually um when non-catholics refer to the Catholic Church as Roman Catholics it just means all Catholics that are in communion with Rome I understand that us us Catholics we get kind of because we you know there's not just Roman Catholic there's Byzantine alexandrian Armenian you know Syria Catholic and and and that all that is just it's a good example it's a this is a really good example of how words even even though we mean the same thing how words can fights like at The ecumenical councils like with noorus and with poorus you know it happens even right here on these on these live streams with uh certain language that we choose to use it's it's about what do you mean by the language not just you know uh you know words themselves it's what do you mean which is also why Pope vilus uh did not contradict himself in matters of Faith all right so last question for uh each one of you starting with you Alex please um can you explain what doctrines have been dog matized by a pope in the first Millennium so in the first Millennium we so for example um St ancius of Alexandria says that um what was dogmatized at the Council of NAA had actually already been definitively dogmatized in the year 260 by Pope uh dionysius so po Pope dionysius was the one that in the year 260 gave the Orthodox uh christology about Jesus Christ being fully God and fully man and the Council of NAA actually um uh just repeated what dius had already said but St anaus who was again the bishop of Alexandria he was one of the Patriarchs he says the bishop of Rome already settled this on his own um and that was in the first Millennium so that's one example uh last question here so for Luigi would the current Schism between Constantinople and Russia be avoided if they were United underneath a universal Bishop like the pope uh again I would say no and I would point to examples in history like the Malayan Schism um where Rome was was on the wrong side of the Schism I mean we're talking about the entire church was in communion with the true patriarch of Antioch and the last ones to finally submit to the true patri of Antioch was Rome and so no I would say that uh first of all no and then second I would say that again Unity for the sake of unity is is is not the answer I don't think anybody believes in unity for the sake of unity we must preserve that which is true and Orthodox um so yeah all right let's go ahead and begin with our close closing statements here so we got 5 minutes a piece beginning first with you Alex and then Luigi you'll have the final word all right all right perfect let me know when I can whenever you're ready okay I'll begin now um so uh first of all I want to thank uh Ben for participating in this wonderful debate it was so much fun I enjoyed it so much and of course I want to thank Michael I want to thank you for hosting it and moderating it I hope that the viewers were edified and that everyone learned something today the resolution of today's debate was that Vatican 1 papal Supremacy indeed existed in the first Millennium before the East and West Schism in my opening statement I demonstrated one dozen unique ways in which the bishop of Rome exercised Universal Supremacy in the first Millennium and then I went through each Century one by one giving example after example of each of these I covered popes who were Supreme in matters of Doctrine on the universal level popes who actively made authoritative decisions in eastern uh uh territories with which included calling cids anuling entire cnid deposing and appointing clerics and excommunicating Eastern Christians including Bishops uh Patriarchs and even entire Patriarchs as well I also presented examples of popes rejecting and anathematizing the teachings of other Bishops Patriarchs and senat I also showed that popes were above Church cannons presenting examples of popes who accepted and rejected individual cannons or even entire Cannon lists at their own will and by their own singular and unique Authority which included the sole authority to ratify ecumenical councils and make them binding upon the universal church which explains why the Orthodox have not been able to hold an ecumenical council for over a thousand years since before the Schism I know that we just talked about the uh the pan Orthodox inate that happened in the 17th century however uh Russia the church in Russia to my understanding never accepted it as even a pan Orthodox C um the last time that they had a council that all the Orthodox hold to was when they were in communion with the pope of Rome uh what the Orthodox claim as their highest Earthly Authority they no longer have because they no longer have the pope and you can't have a universal Council without the universal head of the Christian church I successfully defended this thesis today uh my opponent's job in this debate um because he held the negative view was to disprove the case the case that I made um he didn't succeed in this uh Endeavor entirely um I uh demonstrated that the popes always had a unique singular Authority in the church and all that he had to do was present one case of another church Authority apart from the pope who had greater Authority or even just equal authority to the pope uh this Authority could be any one bishop or even a senate or Council of Bishops that exercised legitimate authority over a pope that bound him to their decrees all my opponent had to do was present one ecumenical council that was binding on The Universal Church that the pope did not ratify but my opponent didn't do this uh because no one can do this because those historical examples don't exist uh instead uh uh my opponent presed objections um that didn't fully hit the mark about what the resolution of the debate was um but they were more about side issues that were ultimately irrelevant uh my presentation was uh Untouched by most of his objections and every objection that he made I was able to answer in the in uh almost every objection I was able to answer in the rebuttal period um he however was not able to do the same I actually refuted uh the strongest objections that he made before he even uh was able to make them uh he exerted a lot of his efforts on the fifth ecumenical council which I spent a considerable amount of time on in my opening statement demonstrating that this particular event in history actually supports the Vatican one claims rather than does harm to them uh During the cross-examination period um he had the perfect opportunity to point out the holes in my presentation and to help me realize how I've totally misunderstood the facts of History um but he was unable to do this um my opponent was uh unable to give entirely satisfactory answers to uh many of the questions that I asked him today uh with all of that being said though I respect his efforts and I have the utmost respect for him as a man of faith and for asking me to have this uh uh this debate and um I think that what we can all take away is that Vatican 1 is correct Vatican 1 did not misrepresent history or make up claims out of thin air Vatican 1 accurately and Faithfully defined what was believed All Along by Christ Church not just in the first thousand years but also in the 2 thousand years and now under the third millennium the conclusion here is that the papacy is and always has been what Vatican 1 claimed the true logical conclusion is that everyone who believes and follows Jesus Christ who desires to be United to him should be and must be United to the Divine Office that he himself established during the his min Min on Earth the office of his Vicor the Pope the head of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ thank you again and God bless everyone all right thank you for that now let's start the timer over Luigi you're going to have the uh last five minutes for your closing statement whenever you're ready all right sounds good yeah I also uh do want to thank both Alex and Michael for having me on I thank everybody that came over from from Tik Tok to watch this and and uh as well as all of uh um Alex's people that came over to support him and and just uh just reading the comments briefly it seems like everybody felt this was a very respectful debate which I'm very happy about um and so I just want to thank everybody for for just their their Hospitality specifically you Michael and and and Alex for for just having a civil discussion with me um I will say that if all I had to do was to show an ecumenical council exercising authority over a pope I believe I did that uh in the fifth ecumenical council and then Alex proceeded to tell me that Council was wrong um if he says it requires the Pope in order for it to be an ecumenical council he'd have to contradict NAA 2 uh when it says that this was a authoritative ecumenical council um by the affirmation of the four Patriarchs of Constantinople Jerusalem Alexandria and Antioch in 1054 on the eve of the great schism Pope Leo the nth sends a letter to Michael the first the patriarch of Constantinople in this letter Pope Leo the9th cites a large portion of a document called the Donation of Constantine justify supreme authority over the east in regards to unleavened bread and fasting days this document after 100 years of being leveraged as a justification for cutting off communion with the Eastern churches was later discovered to be a forgery in fact throughout the second Millennium papal forgeries were referenced even in ecumenical councils such as Trent and Florence to give Merit to the papal claims of the West I argue that this is the clearest testimony of the first millennium's genuine history falling short of Vatican 1 why Forge a d to a house you already own why didn't Pope Leo the 9th reference the letters of Pope Leo the pope agatho or pop po Celestine for example Pope Leo the 9th on the eve of the Schism understood that he needed to leverage something stronger than the claims made in these letters in order to justify his autocratic Authority as a Roman Catholic you have to argue that you are on the correct side of the great schism in spite of the fact that the Schism was caused by papal forgery the reason papal forgeries were so heavily relied upon is due to the fact that the first millennium's genuine history simply does not include autocratic Authority as Vatican 1 asserts examples such as Pope vigilus being overridden by the fifth ecumenical Council Rome being on the wrong side of the Malaysian Schism and Pope anticus conceding to polycarp are s simply irreconcilable with Vatican one claims the only way to coherently argue for the papacy as Vatican 1 defines it is to say that the seed was planted in Matthew 16 and this slowly developed until its culmination at Vatican 1 however Vatican 1 contradicts this claim when it states that this has quote been known since the beginning of the Christian religion end quote therefore the papal apologist has reached a catch 22 if they argue Vatican 1 is present in the first Millennium they contradict history if they argue it was a development they contradict Vatican 1 itself to close I will again read from the fifth ecumenical council when the College of Bishops responds to Pope vigilus attempt to assert papal authority over the council please notice how they reply by stating there is no other way to resolve matters of Faith except when together in a council with the consent of the church quote and to this end we brought to his remembrance the great examples left us by the apostles and the traditions of the fathers for although the grace of the holy spirit abounded in each one of the Apostles so that no one of them needed the counsel of another in the execution of his work yet they were not willing to Define on the question then raising touching the circumcision of the Gentiles until being gathered together they had confirmed their own several sayings by the testimony of the Divine scriptures but also the holy fathers who from time to time have met in the four ecumenical councils disposed of by a fixed decree the heresies and questions which had sprung up that by Common discussion when the matter in dispute was presented by each side the light of Truth expels The Darkness of falsehood nor is there any other way in which truth can be made manifest than there when there are discussions concerning the faith end quote thank you all right thank y'all both for that let's see here let me stop the timer yeah thank you both for doing this debate great job both sides I really appreciate it y'all are both respectful I want to give you an opportunity to put in a plug for your own platforms uh beginning with you Alex uh go ahead and tell them a little bit about what you do uh you're you're on mute by the way sorry that I always do that um thank you again thanks both of you guys this was a blast I've had a crazy amount of fun um so uh yeah I'm sure that most of your viers Michael uh know about me I'm voice of reason can find me on YouTube at voice of reason uncore right what's my YouTube channel I don't even I think that's what it is um Tik Tok and Instagram is a voice of reason forclips right that's my right and then I'm on patreon at patreon.com of Reason get all the exclusive uh super cool content that no one else in the world gets to see uh because I'm too based um Luigi's really based too by the way Lui super based um and um yeah and you can catch me here on reason and theology I'm being pretty regular appearances and uh thank you guys so much for watching than I hope that you guys enjoyed awesome and Luigi yeah put in the plug for anything you want to make viewers aware of uh yeah uh so um on Instagram I think my my my handles are down below in the in the description but my Instagram is lang. Luigi my Tik Tok Isme Christian and my YouTube is Lang Luigi I I had a reformed podcast for a long time on YouTube that I've taken down since taken down the videos of so uh I'm going to be moving on to obviously uh some Orthodox content on my YouTube but you're only going to find a couple videos there right now but I a lot more coming my Instagram is my biggest platform that's where I do a lot of response videos mostly apologetics to atheists and Muslims um I spend most of my time debating Oneness Heretics and Muslims on uh Tik Tok um and so that's where you can find most most of my work is on Tik Tok so awesome well thank y'all both for coming on and doing this everybody hit that like button and the Subscribe button also if you want to support me here at reason of theology patreon.com SL reason and theology we'll see you later God bless are you a Catholic thinking about converting to Eastern Orthodoxy or are you a Protestant Discerning whether or not to become Catholic or Eastern Orthodox if so I have the book just for you it's called answering Orthodoxy and engages all of the arguments that Eastern Orthodox use against the Catholic church I respond to all of them I show that they are in air and in fact they're inconsistent because the things that Orthodox are objecting to are in fact found in their own tradition so the fullness of the faith can only be found in the Catholic Church check out the book right now at shop. catholic.com for your copy today